Reality As It Is

Introduction

Reality As It Is is the first part of the Yoga of Living and Loving program. Yoga of

Living and Loving shows how the basic principles of the Vedic wisdom tradition

provide a framework for individual and collective living. The Vedic tradition is

the most ancient wisdom tradition known, and according to the tradition itself, it

is the original wisdom and culture. Yoga of Living and Loving explains the basic

principles of the Vedic wisdom tradition, and shows how we can apply them

practically in our modern, scientific and technological society.

It would be impractical and inadvisable to try to introduce the whole Vedic

cultural tradition into modern society. The Yoga of Living and Loving program is

based on the teachings of the main Upanishads that are repeated in Bhagavad-

gita.1 This sets aside the Vedic cultural setting, and even the detailed theism of

Bhagavad-gita. It concentrates on fundamental principles that we can experience

directly, or appreciate by simple analysis.

Reality As It Is specifically talks about consciousness, because the Vedic

wisdom tradition gives us a paradigm that is based on consciousness. The

conceptions underlying modern society are more or less based on matter, and we

will discuss how this causes serious problems.

Reality As It Is points out the essential nature of our individual consciousness.

It shows that the individual conscious self is a real, non-physical entity that has a

very profound effect in the world in which we are living. The Vedic wisdom also

points out the universal conscious self, the basis of our individual and collective

conscious existence, and of the world in which we live.

We are always looking for meaningful relationships in this world. The Vedic

wisdom points out the fundamental relationship that is the basis of all other

relationships, and that is the relationship between the individual consciousness

and the universal consciousness. The process for understanding and realizing

this relationship is called yoga. The whole Vedic worldview is aimed at yoga,

which is the real purpose of life. To live in yoga means to live consciously in the

relationship between the individual consciousness and the universal or supreme

consciousness.

One may object, “This Vedic worldview with its emphasis on consciousness

and yoga is not very scientific”, but this is not the case. The Vedic worldview is

extremely scientific. Science is supposed to explain important regularities, such

1 The Muktika Upanishad (verses 30–39) describes 108 Upanishads, of which the following eleven Upanishads are considered to be the topmost:

Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihad-aranyaka and Shvetashvatara.

as gravitation, electromagnetic phenomena, and so on. Now, underlying the

whole scientific process are three really essential regularities, without which the

scientific process simply would not take place.

The first essential regularity is the conscious existence of the scientist who is

doing science; there is obviously no question of science without a scientist to do

it. The second essential regularity is the existence of the scientific community, the

cooperative, collective unit of conscious scientists. The scientific community

agrees and determines what science is and what it is not. It directs scientists to

act in harmony with the basic principles of science, and it also evaluates the

results of scientific investigation, and modifies the canon of scientific

understanding accordingly. Science depends on this scientific community, and

would not take place without it. The third essential regularity is that of matter

itself. This is the basis of the material world in which we live, and which

scientists investigate. It is also the basis of scientific apparatus, and of the

amazing physical body that scientists use to do science.

These three entities are the very basis of science. The scientific community has

not made good progress in explaining the origin and essential nature of the

individual consciousness, of conscious communities, of matter, or of the body. In

contrast, the Vedic wisdom tradition gives a consistent explanation of these

essential regularities.

These essential regularities are not only important for science; they are

important for life as a whole. Any real and relevant system of knowledge must

address the basic questions of life: “Who am I?” “What is relationship, and how

can we find satisfaction and fulfilment in relationship?” “What is this world in

which we are living and what are the principles that govern it?” “How can I live

in this world peacefully and happily?”

The Vedic wisdom tradition addresses these fundamental questions. It gives

us the most consistent explanation for the big and basic questions of life. It also

gives a very full, comprehensive and consistent view of how we can all – human

beings, animals, birds, trees, plants and aquatics – live together peacefully and

happily in this world, and at the same time find real fulfillment through spiritual

advancement.

That is the sum and substance of Reality As It Is. Now we will start to unfold it

in more detail.

Chapter 1

The cost of science and technology

People sometimes express reservations about worldviews that are based on

consciousness or spirit. They say that this must be connected with religion,

which has ruined humanity: “Religion is primitive, backward, atavistic and

anachronistic. Religion holds people down. Religion glorifies ignorance. Religion

means that there is a higher power, and that we have no individuality.” Many

people criticise religion in many ways, and then conclude, “Our modern society

is advanced. Just look at our capabilities and power.” Let us look, then, at our

capability and power, and let us also look at the price we have to pay for them.

Let us take a quick look at the price of science and technology.

It is certainly true that material society has advanced in many areas.

Information science, transport, and medicine are three striking examples of this.

Still, the ability to transform matter in extraordinary ways does not necessarily

indicate fundamental knowledge or wisdom. Our know-how enables us to create

an ever-increasing variety of devices to control the world and improve our

situation in it, but this is technology, rather than science. Our know-how enables

us to manipulate matter, but does not tell us what matter actually is. Nor does it

give us the wisdom to know whether it is fundamentally worth doing the things

that we do, and making the things that we make. A cook, for example, does not

need to know about the real nature of matter in order to bake a cake. Technology

enables us to predict and control the properties of matter, but it does not tell us

what matter is.

Even prominent scientists become confused by their ability to make more and

more convenient devices. They think that this ability measures the advancement

of modern scientific knowledge, forgetting that this is technology (know-how),

rather than science (fundamental knowledge). Thus, modern society with its

phenomenal array of ingenious devices is not necessarily advanced in

fundamental and essential knowledge. For example, modern science still has

very little knowledge of the consciousness that produces ingenious devices.

More significantly still, these very mechanical devices contradict the beliefs of

mechanistic scientists. Mechanistic scientists say that the whole world –

including ourselves – is a giant mechanism, and that physical laws are the only

cause of events in the physical world. They say that there can be no

“supernatural causes”, yet the devices they make could not appear through

spontaneous physical interactions alone.

Conscious beings produce objects that matter by itself would not and could

not produce. Thus, far from advancing, material science has regressed, because it

ignores and even denies the fundamental ability of consciousness to affect matter

in unique ways, such as producing machines, works of art and information.

There is an urgent need for paradigms based on consciousness.

There is a second objection to the idea that modern, material society is

necessarily more advanced than cultures based on consciousness: the very

advancement that modernists praise often causes the deep problems in modern

society. For example, communication networks enable us to telephone tens or

hundreds of millions of people all over the world, but many people in modern

cities do not even know their next-door neighbours. In fact, they do not even

know the people they are living with; family members do not relate with each

other.

Television, for example, is widespread feature of modern society; people

come home and watch television, instead of relating with each other and the

family. A research team asked a group of people to abstain from watching

television for a period of weeks. The group found that, without exception, their

physical and mental health, their relationships, and their overall quality of life

improved. Yet, at the end of the experiment, all the people who had taken part

went back to watching television as usual. Where is the advancement in actual

wisdom?

Modern transport is also a miracle; one can go anywhere in the world for a

reasonable price. The problem is that, as people become more and more mobile,

they travel further and further to work, and live further and further from each

other. As a result, family structure is crumbling, and with it the whole structure

of society.

Again, let us consider medicine. The last 100 years have certainly seen

extraordinary advances in medical treatments and surgery. The downside is that,

in the U.S alone, 100,000 people die every year as a result of medication. Modern

society has created new medicines, and it has also created new diseases. For

example, cancer was more or less unknown in the States 150 years ago, but

nowadays one in two men, and one in three women can expect to get some kind

of cancer.

Yes, we have new drugs that can improve people’s moods, and people need

antidepressants more and more to manage their depression. One in four

American women and one in eight American men will have a severe or major

depression in their lifetime.2 This points out the dark side of advancement in

modern medicine, because happy people do not need antidepressants.

There is another objection to the idea that modern society is necessarily

advanced. What kind of advancement do people have in mind when they talk

2 Dr. Sherry Rogers writes in Depression

about “advanced society”? The success of modern capitalism in the First World

depends on outsourcing to countries such as China or India. (Recently, China has

starting secondary outsourcing to Africa.) In other words, First World profit

depends on economic slavery in the Third World, and even in parts of the First

World. It is convenient to get a ballpoint pen (which I could not make myself in a

whole lifetime) for just a few cents, but this convenience may depend on the fact

that the person who makes these ballpoint pens is not getting even a decent

living wage.

It is calculated that the ecological footprint of humanity is about 40% greater

than the earth can sustain. The global society consumes more resources than are

available, produces excess dangerous waste, and treats many of its members

abominably. It has become a toxic society. We have the science to create this

lethal situation, but where is the wisdom to resolve the crisis?

Again, we can think about how money is being spent. There is so much excess

wealth in the First World, where people spend enough money on cosmetics

alone to feed all the starving people in the third world. “One week of the global

military spending of $20 billion could put an end to all starvation.”3

When people praise the advancement in modern society, my response is:

“Advancement of what?” What we need is not just advancement in science and

technology, but advancement in human values as well. We need a worldview

that teaches us about higher human values. Then we can talk about real

advancement. Science and technology based on matter, but ignorant of

consciousness, cannot help us to understand higher values, because values

repose in consciousness. In contrast, the Vedic worldview deals with

consciousness and how to raise it, so it can help us to understand higher values,

and how to attain them.

3 If You Love This Planet, by Helen Caldicott

Chapter 2

Mechanistic philosophy

Modern society is based on science and technology, and its assumptions more

or less depend on materialistic or mechanistic philosophy. In view of the present

global crisis, it is important to understand a little about mechanistic philosophy,

and its strengths and weaknesses.

Mechanistic scientists insist that only matter exists, and that only physical

laws are acting. “Nothing exists except physical matter, which means matter that

we can at least in principle experience through the senses. (We may have to use

microscopes, telescopes and other instruments, but directly or indirectly we can

perceive it by the senses and analyze it with the mind.) There is no such thing as

a real, non-physical entity.

“Furthermore, only the physical laws are acting; there is no other real

influence. There is certainly no such thing as a real, non-physical force or

influence. Specifically, there is no such thing as a non-physical life force or spirit.

Life is just a complex electrochemical phenomenon. Any kind of superhuman or

supernatural agency is outside science. Even if God exists, which is doubtful, he

has no effect at all on the physical world.”

Nobel laureate Francis Crick has summed up the essence of this worldview as

follows: “You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your

sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a

vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”4

Mechanists not only deny the existence of individual spirit and consciousness;

they also deny that the universe itself is based on universal consciousness. They

deny the idea of Universal Spirit or God. London and other modern cities have

buses with huge placards saying, “God almost certainly does not exist, so better

get on with your life and enjoy it.” This is the age-old philosophy: “Eat, drink,

and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

Professor Richard Dawkins, probably the world’s most prominent and vocal

atheist, writes:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect, if

there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but

blind, pitiless indifference.5

Similarly, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod wrote:

4 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul. Scribner reprint edition. 1995. ISBN 0-684-80158-2. p.3

5 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous

edifice of evolution, with the result that man at last knows that he is alone in

the unfeeling immensity of the universe. Neither his destiny nor his duty

have been written down.

The conclusion of this mechanistic worldview is that there is no real meaning

to life, and there are no fixed guidelines as to how we “should” or “should not”

live. The ideal is to try to get the maximum happiness, without disturbing other

people so much that they start disturbing us. It is a kind of humanism, a

convenient way of living.

God and the scientific revolution

Although many modern scientists are atheistic, many of the original scientists

were not. For example, Rene Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton, two of the

prominent fathers of the whole scientific method, were deeply religious. Rene

Descartes wanted to set up a system of certain knowledge based on the existence

of the individual soul and God. Isaac Newton wrote that the planets and other

heavenly bodies appear to move according to the laws of nature, but the unaided

laws of nature cannot have set up these orbits. "Thus this most beautiful system

of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and

dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."6

Other famous scientists have emphasized that there is no conflict between a

religious worldview, and a scientific worldview. Previous great scientists such as

Michael Faraday, Max Born, and Louis Pasteur have had a religious as well as a

scientific outlook. The same is true of modern scientists such as the leading

geneticist W. French Anderson, and Nobel laureates such as Alan MacDiarmid

(who pioneered research on conductive polymers), William Phillips (who used

lasers to cool atoms), and the neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles. Nonetheless,

Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent public spokesman for science, feels

moved to denigrate faith vehemently, and put scientists who believe in God in

the category of “faith-heads”.

Development of mechanistic philosophy

Society is now based on the assumption that there is nothing outside of

matter, and that there is no real knowledge outside of scientific knowledge. How

has this come about?

Early scientists were faced with confusion, because the knowledge of the day

was full of subjective impressions, bright ideas, rumors, myths, and so on.

Accordingly, they decided: “We will clarify everything by relying on

6 Sir Isaac Newton, Newton’s Principa Motte Translation Revised (543-44), (Andrew Motte Trans. & Florian Cajori rev. 1934), 1686

observations alone. Different scientists should be able to make observations of a

particular system, derive the same results, and then come to the same

conclusions”. This is the objective method, which has enabled scientists to make

tremendous advances in understanding the properties of matter.

With the success of the objective method, scientists concentrated more and

more on objective knowledge, at the expense of subjective knowledge of

consciousness. Later, some of them concluded that objective knowledge is the

only real knowledge; anything else is mere sentimentality. Later still, some

concluded that anything outside the range of the objective scientific worldview

just does not exist; it is just fantasy.

This is how the dominant part of the scientific community has developed the

worldview known as “scientism”. Granted, physical science is successful within

the realm of physical objects. However, no amount of physical knowledge of

physical objects can legitimately say that there is no other realm of knowledge.

There is nothing within material science that can indicate that there is nothing

outside material science. This assumption is simply blind faith. Physical science

only tells us about physical objects. It cannot determine its own scope and

limitation.

Scientism has been defined as “excessive belief in the power of scientific

knowledge and techniques.” It is a formal dogma in the scientific establishment.

For example, the National Academy of Science states: “Because science is limited to

explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural

causation in its explanations. Explanations employing non-naturalistic or

supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural

being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science

curriculum.”7 (emphasis added)

Mechanists have artificially limited science in this way. Having defined

science as being “limited to explaining the natural world in terms of natural

things”, they then conclude that it is unscientific to invoke supernatural

causation. They have artificially excluded any possibility of detecting or

accepting anything outside the limitations that they themselves have set. This is

inconsistent because, as we shall see, the scientific process is itself not a

mechanistic process; it is creative and subjective. Material scientists investigate

physical objects, but the science of physical objects cannot describe or explain the

objective process itself. The science of physical objects cannot be an external

object for itself. We will discuss this crucial point in more detail later.

Mechanists have unreasonably declared that non-naturalistic explanations are

unscientific, and should therefore not come into the educational curriculum. This

7 National Academy of Sciences: 1998, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, Appendix C, National Academies Press, USA.

means that people are educated and brought up – in other words, socialized – to

think only in terms of physical causes, so they are unable to think outside that

box. They do not have the authority, the experience, the concepts, or even the

language that would enable them to think in terms of real, non-physical entities,

influences, and causes.

Modern society is in a crisis, and we can trace this back to the inconsistent,

“scientistic” basis for society. The Vedic wisdom provides an alternative

worldview, which is consistent with obvious facts, where the doctrine of

scientism is inconsistent, and is logical, where scientism is illogical.

Chapter 3

The Vedic wisdom tradition

The Vedic wisdom tradition appeared in ancient India before the beginnings

of history; it is effectively timeless. The language of the Vedic wisdom tradition –

in other words, the language of the Vedas and Vedic literature – is called

Sanskrit. The word “Sanskrit” means “perfectly formed”, and the Sanskrit

alphabet and language are indeed extraordinarily scientific. The Sanskrit

language is extremely complex, subtle, and poetic. It is the origin of the Indo-

European languages, which include many European languages, including the

Germanic languages such as Dutch and German, and the Romance languages,

such as Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish; most Indian languages; and the

Slavonic languages (such as Russian).

The Vedic social structure also appears to be the root of the different kinds of

social structures that we see in the world today. There is good evidence that

Vedic culture was the original culture in Europe and pre-Christian Russia. For

example, the pre-Roman culture in Britain was purely Vedic. The original Druids

were actually Vedic sannyasis or renunciants, before the Romans systematically

exterminated them. Scholars have said that at that time, the culture everywhere

on the journey from Britain to India would have been Vedic.

The Vedic culture and wisdom covers all aspects of life, including medicine,

sociology, warfare, psychology, science, and mathematics. It also gives a

uniquely broad and non-sectarian concept of spirituality. This covers spiritual

knowledge, meditation, yogic practice and theistic worship, and contains many

different kinds of spiritual discipline within its framework. It is based on

universal principles that are completely non-sectarian.

The Vedic wisdom tradition shows us how we can get definite and certain

knowledge. It gives a framework for living peacefully, happily, and prosperously

in the material world, and also shows how we can find real fulfillment at heart

by becoming self-realized and making spiritual advancement.

One might object: “What has this ancient Vedic tradition got to do with our

life in the modern world?” Actually, the Vedic wisdom is timeless. It is like a

User’s Manual for the universe, or the universal Help files. The accusation of

obsolescence really applies to scientific knowledge, which goes out of date very

quickly. Science as it was at the end of the 19th Century is already largely out of

date now. One of my friends trained as a nurse, and at the beginning of the

course, one of the trainers said, “By the end of your career, fifty per cent of what

you learn will already be out of date. Unfortunately, we cannot tell which fifty

per cent.”

The essence of the Vedic wisdom is never actually obsolescent. Nonetheless,

one needs to be guided by trained, self-realized professors in the wisdom. Then

one can see how to apply these timeless principles in specific situations,

according to time and circumstance.

Chapter 4

The Vedic worldview

What is the essence of the Vedic worldview?

The most important question we have to answer is: “Who am I?” I am the

center of my universe; in effect, this is my universe, because it all takes place in

my consciousness. So, who am I?

I have a body, but I am not this body, because I use the body, and I can train

it. I have a mind, but I am not the mind either, because I can change my mind. I

say, “I have a body and I have a mind” and I talk about “my body” and “my

mind”; I do not say “I body” or “I mind”.

The Vedic wisdom tells us that “I” am the conscious being within the body

and mind. This conscious being is real and non-physical, and in the Vedic

tradition it is called atma or jiva. (“Jiva” is the origin of the Russian word

“zhivoi”, which means “alive”.) This jiva or atma is conscious, and it is

consciousness. It is the source of life in the body, and due to its presence the

body works and performs all kinds of extraordinary tasks – such as manipulating

information, and performing aesthetic activities like art and music – which are

physically indescribable and inexplicable.

Just as the body works on the basis of the individual conscious atma, so the

universe works on the basis of the universal conscious self, called Paramatma

(“Supreme Atma”). Many prominent scientists have agreed that universal

consciousness is the basis of the laws of nature. They include Louis Pasteur,

Albert Einstein, astronomer Sir James Jeans, Alfred Russell Wallace (co-

discoverer of the concept of evolution), George Boole (discoverer of Boolean

logic), and physicists Max Born and Erwin Schrödinger.

According to the Vedic worldview, matter is the inert energy of the universal

conscious self, and we living beings are the living energy the universal conscious

self. We actually have real individuality; we are really individuals.

What is the purpose of life? Most people agree that the purpose of life is to be

happy, especially in loving relationships. Surveys find that stable relationships

are at the top of people is list of priorities, although in reality, relationships are

becoming less and less stable. According to the Vedic wisdom, the purpose of life

is to understand and realize our relationship with the Supreme.

The Vedic wisdom tells us that the very nature of the individual self is its

potentials for eternal, personal self-existence; for knowledge; and for happiness.

We can realize that potential in our relationship with the Supreme Self, which is

itself composed of personal existence, knowledge, and bliss on a universal scale.

This relationship is realized through the process of yoga.

There are four distinct categories of yoga. The first is the yoga of work

(karma-yoga), in which one works and offers the results to the Supreme, maybe

without a great deal of personal connection. The second type of yoga is the yoga

of knowledge (gyana-yoga). This involves cultivating knowledge of matter and

consciousness or spirit, and the controller of both. As a result of this, one

meditates in order to understand, “I am not this body, I am not this mind, I am

not part of this material world.” The ultimate goal of this yoga of knowledge is to

merge into the spiritual oneness.

The third type of yoga is the yoga of meditation (dhyana-yoga), which entails

focusing to a greater extent on the Supreme Being. Mystic yogis meditate on the

localized aspect of the Supreme, who resides within the heart of every living

entity along with the individual conscious atma. Such yogis can control the mind

and subtle energies within the body. They can even control the laws of nature,

and mystic perfections (siddhis) which enable them to perform miraculous

activities, such as walking on water, or reaching out and bringing back objects

from a great distance. One of my friends in South India had a grandfather who

was a mystic yogi. Early every morning he would walk with my friend to a lake,

walk across the water (leaving my friend on the bank), sit down on the water in

the middle of the lake, chant his sacred mantras, and then walk back across the

water.

The fourth kind of yoga is the yoga of love (bhakti-yoga). This involves

acknowledging the existence of the Supreme Self beyond the body and beyond

this material world, and making a loving link with that Supreme through loving

service. We see this same yoga principle in all the theistic religions. For example,

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all ultimately aimed at pleasing the Supreme,

which is the essential, core principle of the yoga of love. The Vedic tradition says

that this yoga of love is the highest form of yoga, because it makes the closest

and strongest relationship with the Supreme.

The Vedic wisdom prescribes these different kinds of yoga for people with

different kinds of propensities. Society as a whole is also designed to please the

Supreme, and should be organised so that everyone individually pleases the

Supreme, according to their particular propensity. When people live in harmony

with the Supreme and with the natural laws of the universe, everyone – even

animals, birds and trees – can be prosperous and peaceful. At the same time, they

can also find fulfillment through spiritual advancement. This is the essence of the

Vedic wisdom.

Chapter 5

The false doctrine of scientism

Obviously, mechanists raise serious objections and challenges to the Vedic

wisdom. I now want to point out that their doctrine of scientism is actually false,

in the sense that it contradicts obvious facts.

The doctrine of scientism says that only matter exists and only physical laws

are active. However, when we look at the world around us, we see that this belief

is completely false. For example, a video recording (which is where this booklet

started) requires equipment such as video cameras, computers, microphones and

lights. Somebody has to make these artificial objects, because they do not appear

as a result of unaided physical. Someone has to bring together all the raw

materials, including copper, silicon, tungsten and aluminium. Artificial processes

are required to create these raw materials, because unaided physical interactions

do not produce substances such as pure copper, aluminium and silicon. They not

only do not produce such substances; they can not produce them, because the

high energies and artificial arrangements required make it statistically

impossible.

Unaided physical interactions cannot produce a computer, or a perfectly

tuned grand piano or sitar. They cannot produce a ship-in-a-bottle, which is

deliberately made to look as though it could not possibly get into the bottle by

any physical process. Physical interactions alone cannot produce a house of

cards, which is made in defiance of the natural laws. Nor can they create

something like the Golden Gate Bridge, a radio telescope or a space shuttle.

We are surrounded by objects that physical interactions could not possibly

produce by themselves. There is obviously another influence at work here, and

that influence is consciousness. Consciousness can and does do what matter does

not and cannot do.

First of all, energetic considerations prevent artificial objects from coming

together by themselves. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

physical interactions must bring systems to positions of lower energy. Generally

speaking, systems have greater potential energy when they are physically higher,

which is why things naturally fall to lower positions of lower potential energy. In

contrast, living beings consistently oppose this tendency, bringing physical

systems to positions of higher energy. For example, ants make anthills, and

human beings make skyscrapers, and throw space probes beyond the

gravitational field of the earth.

From the point of view of order and distribution, physical interactions tend to

spread things out and to create disorder from order. In contrast, human beings

act in the opposite way. We create order from disorder, and we bring objects

together according to our own desires and needs. For example, the inert gas

argon is made by fractional distillation of liquid air. It is mathematically

impossible for 10 kilograms of pure argon to become concentrated into one place

from the atmosphere – and yet human agency makes this happen. Living beings,

particularly human beings – and especially material scientists – routinely act in

way that is miraculous from a purely physical point of view.

We can also consider the form of artificial objects such as machines, and also

pictures and other works of art. Unaided physical interactions do not produce

the forms of artificial objects such as engines and computers; rather they degrade

them. It is also impossible from the point of view of mathematics and statistics

that pigments could arrange themselves to depict the form of an object (in

perspective) seen from a particular position in space.

Let us also consider the specific complexity of artificial objects. Simple laws

clearly produce simple systems, such as inorganic crystals (which have relatively

simple forms), rocks, clouds and whirlpools. These may superficially look

complex, but their basic patterns are actually very simple. In contrast, a

telephone directories and computer circuitry are extremely complex, because

they contain a high concentration of very detailed and specific information.

Engines and information systems are also very complex. Complex systems are

produced only by complex laws, and simple systems are produced by simple

laws. It is clear, then, that there are laws of matter, and laws of life.

Information

We live in the Information Age. Living creatures produce information,

whereas physical interactions (including those instigated by small children and

upset cups of coffee) destroy it. It is estimated that in the year 2007, human

beings produced 1.5 exabytes (1.5 million, million, million bytes) of information.

Mathematically, the probability that physical interactions alone could produce

this amount of information is roughly 101,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 against. That is 1

with a million, million, million zeros to one against. How would you like to bet

your life savings on those odds? The total number of particles in the whole

universe is calculated to be a “mere” 1080, so 101,000,000,000,000,000,000 is not even a “real

number”, because it does not correspond to anything in the material world.

In practical terms, these inconceivable odds symbolize the fact that physical

interactions simply cannot produce so much information. Why can such an event

not happen? The reason that physical interactions do not produce information is

very simple: information is not physical. A book containing information is

physical, and the ink that is used to depict the information is physical, but the

information itself is not physical. Information does not have temperature, length,

mass, velocity or any of the physical properties that physical entities have. We

talk about tall orders, hot news, long odds, and heavy incidents, but these are all

figures of speech.

Although information is a non-physical entity (because it does not have any

physical properties), it still produces a real effect in the physical world when it is

made available to conscious beings, such as birds, bees and human beings.

Norbert Wiener, the MIT mathematician who founded cybernetics, wrote,

“Information is information, neither energy nor matter. Any materialism that

fails to take account of this will not survive one day.” This means that no one can

ever explain how physical systems can produce a real non-physical entity like

information. To explain how this could happen, one would first have to describe

information in physical terms, which one cannot do.

In conclusion, it is clearly false to say that everything in the world can be

explained in terms of physical interactions. Artificial objects and information, for

example, cannot be described or explained in physical terms. This means that

when living beings interact with the physical world, there is a real, non-physical

influence at work. The renowned atheist Professor Richard Dawkins has

inadvertently pointed this out: “Science boosts its claim to truth by its

spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on

command.”8 Of course, this statement is meant to be extremely impressive. It also

emphasizes the fact that science itself is neither matter nor energy, because

science commands both matter and energy. Indirectly, Dawkins is emphasizing

the same point that I am making. (However, it remains to be seen whether he

will want to jump through that hoop.)

Consciousness does what matter does not do and cannot do. Consciousness is

real, and non-physical. This is obviously and self-evidently true, because all

living entities constantly and consistently oppose the physical laws of nature.

Birds and butterflies fly. Grasshoppers, frogs and kangaroos jump. Human

beings oppose the physical laws in every way they can, even for fun. Mountain-

climbing, skiing, scuba-diving and hang-gliding all depend on opposing the

physical laws, as do athletic competitions such as throwing the javelin, or hurling

the human body over long distances or high hurdles.

Amongst human beings, scientists specifically oppose the laws of nature

when they investigate them. As Michael Polanyi pointed out, when Galileo

investigated the law of gravity, he had to lift the pendulum bob against the law

that he was investigating. Similarly, physicists use particle accelerators to break

atoms into extremely minute fragments, against the strong and weak atomic

forces that they want to investigate.

8 Richard Dawkins, from "What is True?" in The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Scientists not only oppose the physical laws; they also help the rest of us to

get free from the influence of the laws of nature. When the weather is too warm,

we switch on the fan, and we use electric stoves to cook food. From a purely

physical point of view, who could imagine that a Boeing containing the

equivalent of a small village could take off and fly huge distances at 500 or 600

miles per hour? This still amazes me every time I fly.

Consciousness exerts an influence that goes beyond the physical laws of

nature, and produces effects that cannot be explained in purely physical terms. I

will use the word “paraphysical” (of, pertaining to, or designating physical

phenomena for which no adequate scientific explanation exists) to refer to the

physically unexpected and inexplicable influence of consciousness, and its

physically unexpected and inexplicable results.

The Vedic wisdom recognizes the need to use technology to control matter,

but it adds the caution that this is not really the way to get free from the physical

laws. People still become old and die, with or without refrigerators, stoves and

Boeings. The way to become free from the physical laws is to develop our

consciousness so that we understand that we are not actually physical beings.

We do not really belong here in this physical world; we belong in the world of

pure consciousness. The Vedic wisdom explains how we can live here peacefully,

as long as we are attached to the material world and our body. It also explains

how we can elevate our consciousness to the point of self-realization, where we

can see who we really are, and where we really belong.

Chapter 6

Scientism is Illogical

Scientism is clearly a false doctrine, and so obviously false that it is like a

bluff. Why has this not been seriously challenged? How can it be that nobody

points this out? How can scientists not notice that the artificial objects and

arrangements that they themselves make totally contradict their own doctrine? It

is really amazing.

Since scientism is so false, maybe it does not even make sense. Maybe it is

illogical. After all, logic is the pattern of things that really happen. We get our

sense of whether something is logical by observing what really happens. If

something is illogical, it does not fit into the pattern of things that really happen,

which means that it is not going to happen. When we examine the doctrine of

scientism more closely, we see that it really does not make sense. This is an

important insight.

It is invaluable, if initially uncomfortable, to know where one’s worldview is

flawed. Vedic wisdom shows how to proceed from an understanding of what is

fundamentally and undeniably illogical to the understanding of what is

fundamentally and undeniably logical. That will enable us to reach a degree of

agreement that is otherwise not possible.

This is how we come to this conclusion.

To begin with, every system of knowledge – for example, geometry and

mathematics – has axioms. Axioms are given, self-evident truths that cannot be

questioned or explored by the system of knowledge itself, because they are part

of its basis.

Deeper than axioms are the essential, underlying principles on which a

system of knowledge depends. For example, we use arithmetic to manipulate

numbers. We can use a calculator to calculate 250 multiplied by 360, or 360

divided by 40. However, the calculator cannot calculate what a number is; in fact,

we cannot even use arithmetic to ask the question. Arithmetic cannot explain

numbers, and it certainly cannot deny their existence either, because it is based

on them. We have to understand numbers by some other means.

Similarly, geometry is based on form and motion, so we cannot use geometry

to investigate their nature; they are built into it. Geometry can neither explain

nor deny form and motion, which are underlying principles that are deeper than

geometric axioms. Axioms are understood by the mind, and the deeper,

underlying principles – such as the existence of numbers, form and motion – are

also understood by the mind, but presumably exist in reality.

Deeper still are the boundary conditions of science, the essential aspects of

reality that make it possible to “do science”. These are the conscious processes

that enable us to understand axioms and intuit principles such as numbers, form

and motion. This observation provides a serious – indeed incontrovertible –

challenge to scientism.

Mechanists and proponents of scientism maintain that all reality is within the

range of material science, so that material science can in principle describe and

explain everything. However, there is at least one thing that is outside the range

of objective material science, and that is objective material science itself. The

objective process of examining external objects cannot be an external object for itself.

Let us take some simple examples to illustrate the point.

Pens are great for writing on objects, but I cannot make a pen write on itself. (I

do have a rubber pencil that bends round to write “on itself”, but it only writes

on the part of itself that does not write; it does not write on the part of itself that

actually writes.) Similarly, knives are good for cutting other objects – including

the fingers of the unwary – but I cannot use a knife to cut itself. Pliers are good

for picking up other objects, including knives and pens, but I cannot use a pair of

pliers to pick up itself. Why is it that these implements cannot act on themselves?

Because they are all designed to perform operations on objects outside

themselves, and not on themselves.

If I look through a telescope, I will see external objects, but I will not see the

telescope, and I will not see myself. Similarly, when we look through the

medium of objective science at the world around us, it shows us external objects,

but it does not show us the objective scientific process itself, nor does it show us

ourselves. This is because science only deals with outside objects. Since science

only looks at things outside itself, it cannot be an object for itself.

The objective scientific process is outside the range of the objective scientific

process itself. It is a paraphysical phenomenon and process. Hence, the essential

aspects of the objective scientific process are real, paraphysical entities that are

outside the range of objective science. Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger

understood clearly that the objective process succeeds by setting aside the whole

question of the conscious subject. Hence, the conscious subject is in principle

outside the range of the objective process. He wrote:

Inadvertently the thinker (scientist) steps back into the role of an external

observer. This facilitates his task very much, but it leaves gaps and leads to

paradoxes whenever, unaware of his original renunciation, one tries to find

oneself in the picture, or to put oneself – one’s own thinking and sensing

mind – back into the picture.9

9 Schrodinger, Erwin (1954, 94)

Schrödinger pointed out that objective scientists practise being objective by

taking consciousness out of the picture. That is why they introduce paradoxes

when they try to put consciousness back into the picture, and use objective

inquiry to investigate the conscious subject. The procedure does not work

because it is invalid; it simply does not make sense. Therefore, science does not

cover everything in the universe. The idea is not only false; it just does not make

sense. Objective science is in principle outside the range of the objective scientific

process itself. The same is true of all the essential aspects of scientific process.

That includes consciousness, because one has to be conscious to do science.

When we look at the different aspects of the scientific process, we will find a

range of real, essential entities that are beyond the range of physical science.

Chapter 7

Criteria for Knowledge

It is clear that the materialistic conception on which modern society is based is

fundamentally and fatally flawed. One may reasonably argue that this is the root

cause of the present crisis in society. We desperately need a viable alternative to

the materialistic worldview, and I will begin to show how the Vedic wisdom

does just this.

We need a system or framework of knowledge that explains the cause of our

present crisis. It should also point out a more ideal situation, and how we can get

from where we are to where we want to be. This knowledge must be universal,

so that we can all agree on it. It cannot be a sectarian political or religious

doctrine that appeals to one section of the population and not to another.

Furthermore, it must be expressed in terms of universal principles that are self-

evident and undeniable.

We need knowledge that is (a) complete, (b) certain, (c) consistent, and (d)

relevant to present issues. Now I will show how the Vedic wisdom fits these

criteria. First of all, it is potentially complete because it covers the whole field of

knowledge. It includes both matter and the conscious knower of matter, and also

the basis of both matter and the knower.

The next issue is certainty. How is it possible to get certain knowledge? As Sir

John Eccles has pointed out, material science does not enable us to prove

anything that is non-trivial. Material scientists have theories that appear to be

good to date, but they cannot actually prove anything with any degree of

certainty. It is not even possible to prove that the world really exists, and is not

just an illusion. In contrast, the Vedic framework of knowledge gives us, not

absolute certainty, but practical certainty within our agreed frame of reference.

There is an important distinction between absolute certainty and practical

certainty.

We cannot use our mind and senses to prove anything absolutely, because

our mind and senses are incomplete, limited and imperfect. However, we

customarily assume without any doubt or misgiving that we and the world do

really exist. Now, given that assumption, and given that we are in difficulties, and

given that we have to cooperate, the Vedic wisdom shows how to find practical

certainty.

The path to practical certainty was shown by an eminent, saintly philosopher

named Jiva Goswami, who lived in India about five hundred years ago. He

showed how to find self-evident and undeniable entities that definitely exist and

function. I will use the phrase “essential reality” to refer to these entities. (Jiva

Goswami called them “tattva”, which means “things that really exist”.)

Jiva Goswami defined essential reality as something that is (a) self-evident

and true by experience, and (b) so fundamental that you cannot put anything

simpler or more fundamental in its place. The question immediately arises,

“Well, what is this essential reality?” It is like a riddle: “What is it that is self-

evident, and cannot be replaced by anything simpler or more fundamental.” For

scientists, this is the perennial question, because they are constantly trying to

find the real elements of which this world is made.

Mendeleev is famous for putting forward the Periodic Table of chemical

elements. However, substances such as iron, oxygen, and nitrogen are not really

elements in the above sense, because their atoms can be divided up into smaller

particles. Even sub-atomic particles can be divided and sub-divided, and there is

no limit in principle.

The Vedic Sankhya philosophy takes another approach completely. First of

all, it acknowledges that consciousness, rather than matter, is the prime reality,

for the simple reason that all our knowledge of matter comes through matter. We

never contact matter directly, and material science is actually a study of our

conscious experience of matter. Vedic Sankhya philosophy not only looks at our

experience of nature; it also looks at the nature of our experience. It looks at the

essential framework within which our experience takes place. This gives the first

array of the essential realities, entities of which we can really be certain.

Within the framework of material science, it is clear and undeniable that we

perceive, that we think, and that we act, because these processes are the

fundamental basis of science. These self-evident conscious processes are so

fundamental within the scientific process that one cannot possibly replace them.

Even if one tried to do so, the attempt would by definition involve the same

activities of perception, mental process, and purposeful activity. For example, to

put something in the place of perception, one would have to perceive it. To put

something in the place of mental process, one would have to conceive of it. To

put something in the place of purposeful activity, one would have to make a

conscious and deliberate effort (which would not have taken place under the

influence of the physical laws alone) and communicate one’s conclusions to

others.

Similarly, the conscious self that coordinates our conscious faculties – our

perception, our mental process, and our activities – is also true by experience. I

know by direct experience: “I do”, “I think”, “I am acting”, “I am seeing”. This

conscious coordination of the conscious faculties is also part of the scientific

process, so one cannot use the scientific process to replace that conscious,

coordinating self with anything simpler or more fundamental.

The Vedic wisdom shows us the way to practical certainty about essential

reality, whereas material scientism leaves us in doubt and confusion.

Chapter 8

Consistent and relevant knowledge

We have seen that knowledge has to be complete and it has to be certain. The

next point is that knowledge has to be consistent. Physical scientists tolerate an

extraordinary degree of inconsistency. The eminent Harvard evolutionist named

Richard Lewontin has explained the attitude of physical scientists. He wrote:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its

constructs, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. We are

forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of

investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no

matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in

the door.10

Here Lewontin has admitted that scientists are already sworn to materialism.

Consequently, they have to accept material explanations that do not make sense

to somebody who is not committed to the scientistic way of looking at things (in

other words, to someone who has not been scientistically indoctrinated). That

means that the worldview of the scientific establishment is not necessarily

consistent with known facts. Moreover, scientists are aware of this fact, but they

tolerate it anyway, because they must come up with materialistic explanations.

Here, established doctrine dominates the process of accepting facts. Facts are

subservient to doctrine. Scientists are supposed to believe what they perceive, but

in fact they perceive what they believe.

The Vedic tradition decries this attitude: “No! Consistency and self-

consistency are essential. Theories must be consistent with known facts.

Explanations must be consistent with descriptions. A system of knowledge must

be consistent with itself, and with its own assumptions and criteria.” These are

some aspects of consistent knowledge. Later on, we will see how the Vedic

wisdom is consistent and self-consistent, where the mechanistic worldview is

not.

The fourth criterion for knowledge is that it must be relevant to essential

issues. Some of the aspects or dimensions of the crisis in modern society are

economic, ecological, sociological, international political, psychological and

spiritual. All of these aspects of society are functions of consciousness. Our

ecological crisis is based on our lack of consciousness of our relationship with the

environment. Our economic crisis is based on consciousness, because money

10 Lewontin R. New York Review of Books 1997; 9 January

exists, not as an independent substance, but within the minds of those who are

engaged in financial transactions. To a large extent, our economy literally

depends on the moods of speculators. Sociological decline includes crime,

violence, rape, suicide, and the breakup of the family, which is the fabric of

society. All these aspects depend to some extent on consciousness. Similarly, our

emotional, psychological and spiritual wellbeing are all based on consciousness.

The scientistic, matter-based paradigm cannot possibly solve consciousness-

based issues, because it denies the real and independent existence of

consciousness. In contrast, the Vedic wisdom tradition is directly based on

consciousness, and it specifically shows how we can elevate our consciousness to

find real fulfilment. When we have real, inner satisfaction, these material

problems will become less urgent, or may even disappear.

In summary, we need a new worldview that gives us knowledge that is (a)

complete, (b) certain, (c) consistent, and (d) relevant. The Vedic wisdom shows

that scientism is axiomatically incomplete and illogical, and that materialism can

only be valid within a broader worldview. The Vedic worldview is based on an

understanding of who we are, how we fit into the world, what is the basis of

everything, and what is our relationship with that universal basis.

Chapter 9

Practical certainty

We have come to a crucial watershed. We have considered the scope of

objective science, and we have seen that it examines external, physical objects,

and measures their length, weight, temperature, velocity, and so on. However,

science itself – the objective scientific process – is not a physical object. This

means that the objective scientific process is outside its own range, because by

definition, the scientific process always looks at physical objects that are external

to itself.

Suppose a lighthouse-keeper wants to read a book. He cannot read by the

light of the lighthouse, because that projects outside the lighthouse. He needs

another light to read by. Similarly, to look at the process of objective science, we

need a procedure other than the objective scientific process itself. Specifically, we

need to be introspective. We need to find the nature of the conscious processes

that are essential to science. As a result of the definition of objective science, it is

fundamentally and axiomatically ignorant about its own nature. Paradoxically,

this axiomatic incompleteness of objective science leads us on to practical

certainty.

I have already mentioned Jiva Goswami, who defined and explained essential

reality, of which we can be certain. Essential reality is self-evident or true by

experience. At the same time, it is so essential and fundamental that one cannot

possibly put anything else in its place. That is not true of physical objects,

because in principle one can always divide them up, or replace them by some

other physical entity. The real elements – the real basis of everything – cannot be

physical objects. Jiva Goswami has pointed out the way forward.

Practical certainty and perception

Essential reality is the fundamental basis of our experience in this world. It is

not different from the basis of science, because the scientific process is simply an

aspect of our life in this world. Science is a specialized aspect of our general

process for exploring and understanding our world. Hence, essential realities

must be essential aspects of the scientific process.

Objective science is the study of our perception, so perception is axiomatically

a fundamental element. We perceive objects, but we cannot perceive perception

itself as an object. We use sight to see objects, but we cannot see sight, or describe

it in objective terms. Now, the first criterion for a consistent explanation is that

we must know and state what I am talking about. If we cannot say what we are

talking about, we cannot explain how it has appeared. Hence, since we cannot

describe sight in physical terms, we cannot explain what it is or how it could be

produced by physical causes.

We have different senses for perception. Our sight, smell, touch, taste and

hearing are all physically indescribable. They are also indescribable in terms of

each other. We cannot see smells or taste sounds. Each of these senses is a self-

evident and undeniable essential reality.

Perception is not a physical entity, because it does not have temperature,

velocity, mass, or any other physical property; it is paraphysical. Material

scientists cannot describe perception as an object, so they will never be able to

explain how perceptions come from physical causes. This means that perception

is an essential reality. It is something that we can agree on, insofar as we have

that faculty. At the same time we cannot describe it or explain it in terms of

anything else. It is just there, as an essential and inalienable element of our

existence. If we accept a miracle as “a marvellous event not ascribable to human

or natural agency”, then perception is a miracle.

Practical certainty and mental process

The next aspect of science and of life in general is mental process. We all

think, feel and desire, and these mental processes are essential in science as well.

Scientists certainly have to think, and their thoughts give rise to feelings. For

example, many mainstream scientists have very strong feelings about

creationists. They feel very strongly, and decide, “Creationism is not science.”

Having concluded this, they then desire to find a good, consistent explanation

that refutes the creationists’ ideas. This is just one example of scientists thinking,

feeling and desiring.

When it comes to explaining how the mind works and where it comes from,

one cannot describe the mind from outside the mind. If we try to describe the

mind, our idea of what the mind is will still be a mental conception. We can

never get outside the mind to describe it from outside, as an external entity. This

means that material scientists cannot describe the mind in objective terms. Hence,

they cannot possibly explain in objective terms the origin and function of the

mind. The mind cannot explain the mind. The mind is not a physical object, and

one cannot in principle explain how interactions between physical objects give

rise to the mind. Mental process is also paraphysical. The mind is an essential

element of science, which science cannot describe objectively.

Practical certainty and purposeful activity

Now we come to a sensitive issue: purposeful activity. Material scientists

maintain that only the physical laws are active, and that there is no such thing as

a supernatural or non-naturalistic influence in the world. They seem not to notice

that they themselves are doing things that physical interactions do not do, and

cannot do. Experiments do not set themselves up; scientists have to set up

experiments. Apparatus does not assemble itself spontaneously; scientists have

to devise it and assemble it. Scientists are engaged in purposeful activity to

achieve results that would not come about by themselves.

Material scientists maintain that it is not possible for any non-physical

influence to be effective in physical phenomena because of the Law of

Conservation of Energy. This states that energy can neither be created nor

destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. This is has been

tested in inorganic systems, but it cannot be tested on organic systems. This is the

first objection to this belief. The second objection is that scientists routinely

introduce energy into systems in order to investigate them. Michael Polanyi’s

observation about Galileo lifting the pendulum bob to investigate the law of

gravity illustrates this principle.

Purposeful activity is true by experience; we have personal experience of

performing purposeful activity, and we see it going on all around us. It is an

integral part of the world of living beings. Purposeful activity achieves results

that physical interactions by themselves would not achieve. This means that one

cannot describe purposeful activity in terms of physical interactions. Hence,

scientists cannot consistently explain how purposeful activity could take place as

a result of random material actions and interactions. They cannot explain how

something that is obviously deliberate takes place as a result of non-deliberate

physical actions and interactions. Purposeful activity is a real, paraphysical

process.

The self-validating conscious faculties

We can use the term “conscious faculties” to refer collectively to our

respective faculties for perception, for mental process, and for purposeful

activity. These conscious faculties are inalienable and irreducible parts of the

fundamental basis of reality. Because of our direct experience, we can collectively

agree on their existence and function, and at the same time, it is not possible to

resolve them into more elementary entities. They are self-evident because they

are true by experience. We will now see how they are also self-validating.

A self-validating entity is not only self-evident in the world; it is also self-

evident in statements about itself. Consequently, when one tries to deny their

reality, the denial only calls attention to the reality more strongly. The attempted

denial is self-invalidating, and the entity itself is self-validating.

For example, what happens when material scientists try to deny that

perception is a fundamental entity? Straightway, their attempt depends on

perception. They describe their observations in terms of perceptions, and they

assume that their audience can perceive their communication. Hence, the

attempted denial that perception is real only calls more attention to its essential

reality.

Suppose material scientists say that the mind is just the action of the brain and

nerve cells. The question then arises, what is “the brain”? In order to answer that

question, and state what they are talking about, they have to think about the

brain, and this involves the activity of the mind. They cannot define “the brain”

without using their mind, and without mental images, models and conceptions,

so the denial of the reality of the mind only calls attention to that same self-

evident reality.

Similarly, when material scientists deny that purposeful activity is something

in and of itself, the denial is itself a purposeful activity. Talking about purposeful

activity is itself a purposeful activity.

Our conscious faculties are paraphysical entities. No matter how hard

material scientists try to ignore and avoid the fundamental nature of these

faculties, the same essential realities always appear at the basis of what they are

saying. In other words, these are undeniably real entities. They are an essential

part of reality, because we can perceive them directly and agree on them

amongst ourselves, but we cannot put anything simpler in their place.

Chapter 10

The Conscious Coordinating Self

Conscious coordination

I have been talking about the conscious faculties – perception, mental process,

and purposeful activity – as essential parts of science. These conscious faculties

are self-evident, because we have direct experience of their existence and

function. At the same time, they are so fundamental that one cannot put

anything more fundamental in their place. These conscious functions do not just

happen by themselves. Rather, we use them and direct them.

We have to learn how to use our conscious faculties effectively. We train

ourselves to see things clearly, to hear clearly, to think clearly and to act

effectively. For example a therapist is trained to watch minimal clues such as

breathing, pulse rate, change in posture, change in color, and so on. I remember

an NLP instructor telling a member of the class to form a picture in his mind. The

student did so, and the instructor told him, “Your picture is in black and white,

stationary, not moving, and you are seeing it about five feet in front of you.” The

student confirmed that what he had said was true.

We honor scientists or great thinkers such as Albert Einstein and Stephen

Hawking, who coordinate their thinking ability, and arrive at extraordinary

conclusions. We also honor people such as musicians, marksmen, athletes and

sportspeople, because they can act very consistently and coordinate their

activities.

Now the question is, “What is it that coordinates the conscious faculties?”

The self-validating self

Coordination does not take place spontaneously. There is a conscious agent

who coordinates. Teams that win football matches deserve to get the prize,

because, “They did it!” Marksmen who shoot very accurately receive awards

because, “They did it”. Scientists who think very clearly may deserve to get a

Nobel Prize, because “They thought of the idea.” In other words, we assume –

and we experience directly – that there is an “I”: “I am doing”; “I am thinking”;

“I am feeling”; “I am perceiving”. Everything points to the existence of a

conscious, coordinating self.

We coordinate our conscious faculties, and we think, “I am seeing”; “I am

doing”; “I am thinking”. In all of this, we assume that somebody is responsible

for carrying out these activities, otherwise why would we reward them, or

punish them? Why do we recognize ourselves and others? In other words, we

think in terms of an “I”, this coordinating self, which we experience directly.

Everyone can understand, “I exist”. I know that I am, though I may not know

what I am. In any case, we experience that we are here. We can define the

conscious coordinating self as “the conscious entity that coordinates the activities

of our conscious faculties”. This means that we can define the coordinating self in

terms of direct experience. However, the conscious self is not to be found amongst

the changing objects of experience. Rather, it is the unchanging agent of experience.

The conscious, coordinating self is self-evident and true by experience.

Furthermore, one cannot consistently deny its fundamental nature, because that

denial would require the same coordination of the conscious faculties. The denial

also depends on the function of the conscious coordinating self. Hence, one

cannot consistently put anything else in its place.

The celebrated empirical philosopher David Hume is well-known for his

denial of the existence of the conscious self. He wrote:

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always

stumble on some particular perception or other …. I never can catch myself at

any time without a perception, and [I] never can observe any thing but the

perception.11

On these grounds, Hume concluded that there is no conscious self, but his

statement begs the questions: “Who is it who is trying to find the self? Who is

entering into himself? Who is doing the perceiving? Who is looking?” That is the

function of the conscious coordinating self. Saint Francis pointed out that the

person that we are looking for is actually the one who is looking. Material

scientists have not noticed this fact, or they have just ignored it. They have not

found the conscious, coordinating self because it is paraphysical, rather than

physical.

On the one hand, this conscious coordinating self is self-evident and true by

experience. On the other hand, it is self-validating. One cannot contradict its

existence without bringing in the conscious coordinating self again.

In conclusion, the conscious faculties, and also the conscious coordinating self

who coordinates them, are essential aspects of science. Of course, they are also

essential aspects of life in general, and they cannot be explained in physical terms

– even in principle.

11 David Hume, A treatise of human nature, Sect. vi. Of Personal Identity

Chapter 11

Conscious Faculties and Inconceivable Energy

The conscious faculties are fundamental entities, but where do they come

from? How do we explain their appearance and function? Science is supposed to

explain important regularities in the universe or in our experience. Now, the fact

that we experience is an essential regularity in the science of experience. According

to the Vedic viewpoint, the essential elements of reality include the senses (our

ability to see, hear, smell, taste, and touch), and also our ability to act (for

example the use of the hands to manipulate things; the use of our feet to move

around; and the use of our tongue to communicate with each other). Our simple

analysis has confirmed that this is the case. Material scientists cannot explain

how these conscious faculties appear as a result of physical interactions. Rather,

they are fundamental, universal functions. The question then arises, “How are

they manifested?”

The conscious faculties are manifested by some form of energy, because

energy is the “ability or capacity to produce an effect”. However, this energy is

indescribable in physical terms. Therefore, we must admit that these essential

entities are manifested by an energy that is inconceivable from the point of view

of physical science. This is not even a theory; it is a self-evident fact. We have no

alternative but to come to this conclusion.

On the one hand these essential entities are real, in that they produce a real

effect in the world. For example, the fact that I can see enables me to change the

physical world. That means that there is definitely a type of energy there,

because energy is that which makes a difference in the physical world.

On the other hand, that energy is indescribable and inconceivable from the

physical point of view.

in this area, has taken the bull by the horns. He points out that there is an

“explanatory gap” between on the one hand our descriptions of the brain with its

neurons and other apparatus, and on the other hand our experience of

consciousness. There is no causal link between, on the one hand descriptions of

brain states, and on the other hand our conscious experience. Chalmers says, “I

suggest that the theory of consciousness should take experience as

fundamental”.12 In other words, he accepts experience as a fundamental element,

and an irreducible part of what is given.

Marc Krellenstein has further pointed out that there is no possibility of ever

making a physical theory about how the brain produces consciousness. He writes:

However there can be no concepts for explaining the brain as producing

consciousness, since the property to be explained, consciousness, is itself

paradigmatically unobservable. Any observation-based concept will therefore be

unable to connect to consciousness in the way required of a full explanation of

consciousness.13 [emphasis added]

Krellenstein very rightly points out that one cannot objectively observe what

consciousness is. Consequently, since one cannot describe consciousness, how on

earth can one ever explain where it comes from? There is no possibility of making

a consistent physical theory. This conclusion is completely consistent with the

conclusions of quantum physics. Quantum physicist Henry Stapp writes, “The

theory (quantum physics) is constructed to be fundamentally about our

experiences which therefore become the basic elements of the theory.”14

(emphasis added)

We have already pointed out the Vedic viewpoint: perception is an essential

part of the universe. Now we see that this is also the emerging scientific

understanding: perception is an essential, elemental part of the universe. Modern

material science is converging with the changeless Vedic viewpoint. It is clear

then – both from the point of view of logic, and also from the Vedic viewpoint –

that consciousness is due to an inconceivable, non-physical energy. That in a

nutshell is an overview of the scientific attempt to give a physical explanation of

perception.

12 David Chalmers, Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19, 1995

13 Krellenstein, M. (1995). Unsolvable Problems, Visual Imagery and Explanatory Satisfaction. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 16, 235-253. (section

4.8)

14 Henry P. Stapp, JCS, Volume 3, Number 3, 1996, pp. 194-7

Chapter 12

Material science and the conscious faculties

Mental process

Regarding mechanists’ attempt to explain mental process, Tim van Gelder

from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne, has written:

In short, the contemporary mind-body debate suffers from chronic failure to

solve its most basic problems, a dearth of major new ideas, much going

around in circles, outbreaks of anomaly and despair, and suffocation by the

steely grip of scholasticism.15

Here van Gelder has pointed out that the mechanistic approach simply is not

working. Still, we will avoid what Richard Dawkins calls “gap theology”—a

situation when, if there is a temporary problem for physical scientists,

proponents of religion jump up and say, “Aha! God did it!” We will avoid that

simplistic response, and at the same time note that there is a serious difficulty in

explaining mental process.

“The ghost in the machine”

There are two basic mechanistic theories about the mind. One can call the first

theory “the theory of the ghost in the machine”. The idea here is that mind is a

by-product of the brain and nervous system (an “epiphenomenon”). Living

bodies are in effect nothing more than physical machines, and when the physical

bodies become complex enough, they produce consciousness.

According to this conception, consciousness is nothing more than an abstract

or subjective experience (whatever that would be in a physical theory).

Consciousness cannot actually do anything. We, the ghosts in the machine, think

that we are acting in the world, and producing physical effects. However, in fact,

the body is acting completely automatically and mechanically, according to the

physical laws. Francis Crick, a professed atheist who received the Nobel Prize for

his work on the structure of DNA, has written, “You, your joys and sorrows,

your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will,

are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their

associated molecules”.16

We have the sense: “I am actually an agent who produces real effects in the

physical world,” but the mechanistic conception is that this is simply an illusion.

The body is nothing more than a machine that acts automatically under the sway

and influence of the laws of nature. I think that I am performing actions with the

15

van Gelder, T. J. (1998) Monism, dualism, pluralism. Mind and Language, 13, 76-97 16 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul. Scribner reprint edition. 1995. ISBN 0-684-80158-2. p.3

body, but I am like a kid with a toy steering wheel in the back seat of a car. Dad

is actually driving the car, but the kid with the toy steering wheel has the

mistaken impression, “I am driving the car”. Similarly, according to this theory,

consciousness thinks that it is steering the body, but actually it is not really doing

anything at all; it is just situated in the body, like an impotent ghost in the

machine. According to this idea of “ghost in the machine”, brain states produce

mental phenomena. Our experiences of thinking, feeling, willing and so on are

simply products of brain states.

Our direct experience shows that this theory cannot be true. Minute by

minute, we decide when to perform an action. Mechanists would say that we

have no real choice. Their idea is that our actions are really determined by what

goes on in the environment, and by previous conditioning of the body and

nervous system. Our impression of causing the activities to take place is simply

an illusion. This idea is invalidated when we deliberately achieve effects that

would not otherwise have occurred. For example, we can learn how to use bio-

feedback to induce unusual states of the body, such as deep relaxation, or

speeding up and slowing down the heart. The well-known Zen protagonist Ken

Wilber can induce cessation of brain activity at will. These observations clearly

show that brain states can be produced by intention and not the other way

round.

Neurophysiologists have also performed experiments that confirm our direct

experience. They have shown that it is the intention in the mind that produces

brain states, and not the brain states that produce apparent intention. For

example, they can measure the flow of blood in the particular area of the brain

corresponding to a particular function. When a subject concentrates and simply

imagines carrying out that function, without any physical action, the blood flows

to that particular part of the brain. In other words, the physically measurable

brain states are caused by a mental intention, and not the other way around. The

“ghost in the machine” theory is not consistent with known facts.

Identity Theory

The second main mechanistic theory of the mind is called Identity Theory.

This theory states that the brain states that we can physically measure are actually

identical with our subjective experiences. It is not that brain states are caused by

subjective mental process, or that subjective mental process is caused by brain

states. Rather, they are both actually identical with each other, but seen in two

different ways – objectively and subjectively – like the particle-like or wave-like

aspects of matter.

The Identity Theory neatly sidesteps the need for explaining something that

seems (and is) mechanistically inexplicable. It does so by saying that there is

actually nothing to be explained. “You are worrying about where experience

comes from, and how brain states could produce experience. Actually, there is

nothing to worry about, because neither brain states nor experience cause the

other. They are identical, and so there is nothing to worry about.”

The sidestepping process is not as effective as it seems at first sight. Again,

mechanistic theorists run up against the explanatory gap that David Chalmers

has pointed out. They say that brain states are identical with experience.

However, when scientists observe brain states, they are investigating something

outside themselves, whereas subjective experiences are internal. Nothing about

brain states and subjective experiences suggests that they could be identical.

They are self-evidently in different categories, and nothing about physically

measurable brain states entails their production of subjective experience. The

Identity Theory does not explain how, or in what way, brain states are identical

with conscious experience; it is just an article of faith, a whimsical dogma

Furthermore, mechanistic scientists will never be able to state the Identity

Theory consistently. What they call “brain states” are really their subjective

experience of events and entities. Their descriptions, measurements and

understanding of brain states all depend on the subjective experience that they

are trying to explain, so they cannot say what they mean by “brain states”

without recourse to subjective experience. Consequently, Identity Theory does

not actually explain anything; in fact, it does not even state anything coherent. It

only emphasizes once again that mind is fundamental, because what scientists

call “brain states” are actually conceptions in the mind.

Mechanism, free will and truth

Neither of the mechanistic attempts to explain the mind actually holds water.

The “ghost-in-the-machine” idea does not fit known facts, and the Identity

Theory is not a coherent statement at all. There is another and deeper problem.

The doctrine of scientism says that there is really no such thing as free will: “We

think that we are doing something, but we are not really doing it.” That means

that there is no real responsibility, and no real initiative. The first problem is that

this provides no basis for society, because society is based on responsibility

(starting, for example, with toilet training). Members of a functional society must

take responsibility for their actions.

Furthermore, if there is no real responsibility, and if the appearance or

impression of responsibility is illusory, then there is no real responsibility in

science either. That means that scientists are not responsible for their great

discoveries, so why should we recognize or reward them? Why should we

attribute any virtue to scientist, if they just acting like machines? In fact, why

should we even listen to them?

Another way of looking at it is consider the question of truth. Scientists

assume – and want us to accept – that the theories they put forward have truth-

value. However, the idea of truth and meaning has no significance if all activity

is just the mechanical result of actions and interactions. The event of an apple

falling off a tree is not “true” or “untrue”. It is the alleged fact that an apple has

fallen that is true or untrue. The “fact” is an observation that is separate from the

physical occurrence itself. (By the way, facts, like observations, are non-physical,

because we cannot weigh them, or take their temperature.)

The theory that things fall because of gravity may also be true or untrue. The

theory is separate both from the physical occurrence, and from the non-physical

observations. The apple is a physical entity; the fact of its falling is a meta-entity;

and theories about why things fall are meta-meta-entities. There is no possibility

of ever explaining how physical actions and interactions can produce meta-meta-

physical theories. Nor it is it possible to describe physically the process of

discussing whether theories are or are not “true”.

If the mechanists’ theories were correct, their theorizing would itself be

nothing more than mechanical actions and interactions in the brain and nervous

system. It would not have any more significance than any other mechanical

process, such as the croaking of frogs, or leaves rustling in the wind. Why, then,

should we listen to them, if their speech is just mechanical babble? Why listen to

scientists talking, rather than frogs in the pond, or leaves rustling in the wind?

According to their theories, it is all the same thing: just mechanical action and

interactions.

Mechanists maintain that the mind is just produced by the brain, and that all

our conscious activities are completely automatic. This idea contradicts and

invalidates itself. Mind is a self-evident, essential and irreducible element of our

life in the world, and of our interaction with it (including scientific activities).

Chapter 13

Mechanists and purposeful activity

The third aspect of our conscious faculties is purposeful activity – activity that

we perform in order to achieve something that would not occur spontaneously.

According to the material scientists, there is no such thing as purposeful activity.

The body acts mechanically, and we have a subjective impression of trying to do

something. Contradicting this scientistic idea, neurophysiological research shows

that there is an orientation of the electrical charges in the brain before the subject

acts. There appears to be a deliberate setting up of a brain state, which then fires

off particular neurons, which in turn operate particular muscles. Again we see

that intention precedes physical activity.

Sir Karl Popper and Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles worked together to put

forward a model which they called “dualist interactionism”. They maintained

that the conscious self is a non-physical entity that interacts with the body

through the brain. Eccles wrote, “We have to recognize that we are spiritual

beings with souls existing in a spiritual world, as well as material beings with

bodies and brains existing in a material world.”

Material scientists have themselves provided excellent evidence for the

understanding that purposeful activity takes place as a result of deliberate

intention. Workers in the area of prosthetic research can insert electrodes in a

particular area of a subject’s brain in such a way that the subject can learn to

carry out activities just by willing them to happen. For example, totally

paralyzed quadriplegics can learn to turn lights on and off; to switch TV sets on

and off; to change the channels; to switch their computer on; and to answer their

e-mails – just by intending to. Similarly, monkeys can learn to feed themselves by

means of a mechanical arm directed by electrodes implanted in their brains, and

they can also learn to play computer games – all by simply intending to do these

things.

This latest research is an excellent model of how the conscious self must

interact with the body through the brain. One person writing about this research

said it looks like telekinesis – physical activity carried out by the mind. In fact,

our everyday activities of moving the body are themselves telekinesis. We have

an intention, and as a result of that intention, we move the body. We actually

change situations in the physical world, simply by intending to do so.

Arthur Young, the enterprising scientist and inventor who invented the Bell

Helicopter, writes, “The earlier concept of the universe made up of physical

particles interacting according to fixed laws is no longer tenable. It is implicit in

modern findings that action rather than matter is basic.”17 If we follow this idea

through, it suggests that matter itself is a form of action on the part of a universal

conscious being.

Conclusion

In conclusion, material scientists have not been able to explain the conscious

faculties – perception, mental process or purposeful activity – in physical terms.

There is a complete impasse; they have not made any solid progress, and there is

no prospect of their being able to do so. The reason is that one cannot describe in

physical terms what one means by perception, mind, or purposeful activity.

Since one cannot describe these entities in physical terms, there is no way in

principle that one will ever be able to explain their appearance and function in

physical terms. Logically, then, we have to accept them as products of an

inconceivable, non-physical energy. That is exactly the Vedic viewpoint – that

these conscious faculties are irreducible and elementary aspects of the material

universe.

17 Young, Arthur M., The Reflexive Universe

Chapter 14

Science and the conscious coordinating self

The Vedic viewpoint

We have seen that the conscious faculties are manifested by an inconceivable

energy that is real, but non-physical. Now, deeper than the conscious faculties is

the conscious self that coordinates these conscious faculties. According to the

Vedic viewpoint, this conscious self is also not produced by physical interactions.

The conscious self is the atma, a real, eternal, non-physical conscious entity. The

atma is both conscious and consciousness, and it has an inherent, threefold

nature.

The first aspect of the atma is the potential for non-temporal, personal self-

existence. Everything around us changes, including the body, yet the “I-ness”

does not change. We continue to exist as personal beings, and this personal

existence – the fact that we exist – is not affected by time. I was five; I was ten; I

was fifteen; I was twenty. My body has changed, my mind has changed, and my

personality has changed. Nonetheless, “I” was five, and “I” was ten. In the midst

of the change around us (including the changing body and mind), something

does not change. Everything material is subject to change, but that something,

that “I-ness” is not subject to change. It is non-temporal, which means that it is

not material – but we tend to forget that.

The second aspect of the atma is our limitless potential for knowledge, and the

third aspect is our potential for satisfaction and happiness, fulfilment and bliss.

These are the three fundamental characteristic qualities of this jiva, or atma.

According to the Vedic viewpoint, our pure consciousness becomes covered

over by material consciousness. We then identify with the material world around

us, and think that we are products of matter. However, our “I-ness” cannot really

be a product of matter, because our “I-ness” does not change, whereas matter is

constantly changing. We also have potential for knowledge and happiness,

whereas matter is inert.

When I was in Sweden, my friend Ingvar told me a Swedish folk story. Ten

country people were carrying a big tub of butter to the market. At one point, they

had to cross a river by boat, and when they landed on the other side, they said,

“Let us count up and make sure that everyone got over safely”. One of them

counted and said, “There were ten of us, but now there are only nine.” Then the

next one counted and said, “You are right, there are only nine”. All of them

counted the members of the party and could only see nine people, but they could

not see who was missing. In the end, one of them said, “Look, I have got an idea

– we’ll all stick our noses in the butter”. When they stuck their noses in the butter

and counted the nose-prints, sure enough there were ten marks. Then they knew,

“OK, we are all here.” My friend Ingvar said, “You know, I think it would be best

if scientists had a pot of butter in the laboratory, and every morning they stuck

their noses in it, just to make sure that they know that they really exist.”

Evidence for the conscious coordinating self

Why is it reasonable to think that the conscious self is a real entity, and not

just an illusion? First of all, I have been talking about the coordination of

conscious faculties, which is an essential part of the scientific process. If

materialists try to deny the existence of the conscious self, it comes back and bites

them on the backside. That is because, in communicating their scepticism, they

still have to use the same coordinating self to orient their brain, mind, perception

and so on.

Our common understanding is that we really exist. We have the same name

and social security number throughout our lives. We remember when we were

very small, and our mothers will tell us how we were when we were tiny babies,

and even before we were born. We cannot remember, but they see that we are

the same person. That is also the general assumption in society. If we do

something good, we are rewarded, even ten or twenty years later. Similarly, if

we commit a crime, we may be punished ten or twenty years later. That means

that we recognize that we continue to be the same person. That is common

understanding, and scientists also agree. Many scientists have pointed this out.

Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger wrote:

In brief, we do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us.

We are not in it - we are outside, we are only spectators. The reason why we

believe that we are in it – that we belong to the picture – is that our bodies are

in the picture; our bodies belong to it.18

Here, Schrödinger clearly distinguished between on the one hand the body,

and on the other the self, who sees the body and the world around us. Roger

Penrose writes in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, “In short, what makes

human beings human is not a material quality. It is a spiritual one, and it is clear

that its source is an entity apart from matter.”19

There are many well-documented examples of near-death experiences

(NDE’s) that provide evidence that the self is a real entity. For example,

researchers made a long study in Dutch hospitals of people who were revived

after they had died of a heart-attack. (This means that their heart and brains had

completely stopped functioning.) When they were revived, 12% had had a very

18 Schrödinger, Erwin: 1954, Nature and the Greeks, London, Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 94

19 Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, Penguin Books, 1989, pp. 24-25

vivid experience. They could relate events that that they would not be expected

to know, that had happened in the operating theater while they were supposedly

unconscious. (One of the patients was physically blind, but had been able to see

when she was clinically dead!) They were seeing, not from the body, but from

above the body.

One person who had a near-death experience left the operating theater, and

went outside the building in a disembodied state up to the sixth or seventh floor.

Looking in through the window, he saw something on top of a tall cupboard in

the room, and when he was revived, he told a surgeon. The surgeon found that

the object on top of the cupboard could not have been seen from inside the room;

it could only be seen from outside this sixth-storey room.

There is also much evidence that supports reincarnation. Of course, there are

quite spectacular experiments on regression. For example, one Australian lady

remembered under hypnosis living in Somerset in England two or three hundred

years ago. She described place names which could only be found on old maps,

and the investigators found her name and the names of family members in the

parish register. When they took her to the place that she had described in

England, she recognized it. Looking at the house where she had lived, and which

she had previously described under hypnosis, she said, “But there should be a

window there.” When they went inside, they could see that there had previously

been a window, but it was now bricked up and covered with ivy, so that it was

invisible from the outside. She had previously described particular markings on

a stone on the floor, which was now covered by a foot of chicken droppings.

When they cleaned the stone, the markings were clearly visible, just as she had

described.

Ian Stevenson has also collected hundreds of cases which are suggestive of

reincarnation. This is more evidence for a conscious self, which is a real entity,

and which is eternal and non-temporal.

The conscious coordinating self in science

Another point about the self is that its existence and function are assumed in

the criteria for the objective scientific process. Material scientists say that there

are two very important criteria in science. The first is objectivity, and the second

is inter-subjective verifiability. Let us consider objectivity first.

When we consider the principle of being objective rather than subjective, the

question arises, “Can an object be objective?” The answer is, “No. Objectivity is a

subjective mood. Only a subject can be objective. We consciously decide to be

objective rather than subjective.” The first criterion for objective science, then,

necessarily entails the existence and function of the non-objective conscious

subject.

The second criterion is inter-subjective verifiability. This means that any

number of conscious subjects can view the same event, make the same

measurements, analyze it in the same way, and come to the same conclusions.

The phrase “inter-subjective” means “between many subjects”, so “inter-

subjective verifiability” explicitly entails the existence of the conscious subject;

the existence of the conscious subject is right out in the open here. Mechanistic

scientists actually assume the existence of the conscious subject, who is separate

and distinct from the objects that the subject observes. As Erwin Schrödinger

pointed out, when they deny this, their denial gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes.

The characteristic qualities of the self, as seen in human beings, are non-

temporal, individual self-existence; knowledge; and satisfaction. We see these

aspects of the self, not only in human beings, but also in animals, and even fish

and birds. They also have subjective processes; they learn; they obviously have

emotions; they have the instinct for self-preservation; and so on. Even plants

respond to music and personal action. Good gardeners go and speak to their

plants and caress them, and this makes the plants grow better.

This is some of the evidence that the individual self is neither an illusion, nor

just a product of physical interaction. Rather, as the Vedic wisdom tradition says,

the conscious self is a real, paraphysical, fundamental particle.

We are real, fundamental entities.

Chapter 15

Evaluating the Vedic and mechanistic worldviews

We need to cooperate with each other, and in order to do so, we need

knowledge that we can share and agree on. This knowledge must be complete,

certain, consistent and relevant. Now we will briefly compare the Vedic and the

mechanistic viewpoints, to see how they satisfy those criteria.

Completeness

In principle, the Vedic wisdom tradition satisfies the first criterion of

completeness, because it considers matter, the consciousness that observes

matter, and also the underlying basis and matrix of both matter and

consciousness. There is another very important point here: our understanding of

matter is based in our experience of matter, which means that the prime reality is

consciousness, not matter. The Vedic wisdom tradition is based on

consciousness, for it takes consciousness as the prime reality, whereas scientism

neglects and even denies consciousness. In terms of completeness, then, the

Vedic wisdom is far superior to the mechanistic worldview.

Certainty

The Vedic framework gives us a degree of practical certainty, because it

points at essential elements such as the conscious faculties and the self, which are

self-evident and undeniable essential realities. In contrast, scientism gives

uncertain results, because it only deals with objects, which can always be divided

or changed. Sir John Eccles, for example, wrote that one cannot use material

science to prove anything non-trivial; in fact one cannot even prove that the

world exists. The reason is that material science is not designed to give certainty

about reality. Rather, it is designed to compare results of observations within a

given framework. One cannot define “reality” in physical terms, so ontological

questions are outside the range of physical science. Specifically, material science

is not meant for discussing the consciousness that it depends on.

In terms of certainty, the Vedic wisdom tradition is superior to the

mechanistic worldview.

Consistent and relevant knowledge

Let us have a look at some basic guidelines for producing consistent

explanations.

1. Define what is to be explained

The first criterion is that we must say specifically what we are talking about.

To explain X, I must first say what X actually is, and define it. Mechanists

maintain that only physical entities are real, so before they explain anything in

purely physical terms, they must first describe and define it in purely physical

terms. In the case of subjective processes such as perception and mental process,

this is an insuperable obstacle. They cannot in principle be described in physical

terms, so they cannot be explained as products of purely physical interactions.

The fact that the objective scientific process cannot describe itself or its

essential elements in purely physical terms severely limits its practical scope. The

National Academy of Science has decreed: “Explanations employing non-

naturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a

supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid

science curriculum.”20 It is extraordinary that this institution has made such a

statement, when their scientific process itself is “non-naturalistic and

supernatural”, and hence “outside the realm of science and not part of a valid

science curriculum”. Physical scientists deny the paraphysical, but their own

process is itself paraphysical, a physical phenomenon: “for which no adequate

scientific explanation exists.”

2. State the specific explanation in terms of known entities

The second criterion for consistent explanations is that one must state one’s

explanation explicitly. The objective scientific process is concerned with direct

experience, so one must have direct experience of the explanation. The Vedic

wisdom explains our world of experience in terms of entities that we can

experience directly, whereas material scientism does not. For example, the theory

of evolution, for example has never been stated clearly and specifically, in terms

of entities that are already known by experience. There is no known mechanism for

producing new and favourable forms and species, and it is not even clear

whether speciation is supposed to take place gradually or in sudden jumps. To

explain away the fact that there are not transitional forms between fossil species,

evolutionists have invented fictitious processes such as “punctuated

equilibrium”.

The Big Bang theory so clearly contradicts the evidence that it has to be

20 National Academy of Sciences: 1998, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, Appendix C, National Academies Press, USA.

“saved” by invented entities such as “dark matter”, which we cannot perceive,

but which is supposed to comprise 95% of the universe, and “dark energy”.

3. Irreducible elements in descriptions are irreducible elements in

explanations

Consistent explanations must correspond to consistent descriptions. This

means that irreducible elements in descriptions must be accepted as irreducible

elements in explanations. If our experience tells us that a certain entity cannot in

principle be broken down further, then it is safe to put it as one of the ultimate

elements in our explanations. This applies to the conscious faculties, and to the

conscious coordinating self. These are irreducible elements in descriptions, so

they should be placed as fundamental, irreducible elements in explanations as

well. The Vedic wisdom tradition does this. In contrast, material scientism tries

to explain consciousness in terms of physical objects of which we are conscious.

This procedure is radically inconsistent, and doomed to failure.

4. Consistent explanations must follow consistent descriptions

The sequence of dependence in consistent explanations must follow the

sequence of logical dependence in consistent descriptions. For example, “the

mooing of cows” is logically dependent on cows; cows can exist without mooing,

but the mooing of cows cannot exist without cows to do the mooing. We

therefore accept that cows cause mooing, and not that mooing produces cows.

How does this principle apply practically?

Scientific descriptions of objects depend on consciousness, so it is illogical to

say that consciousness is produced by physical objects that it describes. The

Vedic tradition accepts consciousness as fundamental, whereas mechanistic

scientists put forward the illogical idea: “Your consciousness is produced by the

things that you are conscious of.” Conscious perceptions are the content of

consciousness; consciousness itself is the context. We cannot explain the context of

consciousness in terms of its content.

Another corollary of this principle is as follows: since our world view

depends on consciousness and exists in consciousness, it is logical to suppose

that the world we view also exists in consciousness.

5. Accept the assumptions that knowledge depends on

Explanations can never be consistent if they deny the basic assumptions of the

system of knowledge. For example, the principles of objectivity and

intersubjective verifiability assume the existence and function of the conscious

subject. The Vedic tradition accepts the existence and function of the conscious

subject as fundamental, whereas mechanistic scientists deny the existence of the

conscious self, even though they insist on these principles.

Further, explanations must accept the reality of the entities and principles on

which the system of knowledge depends. This means that mechanistic scientists

are wasting their time trying to find physical causes for the conscious faculties

and coordinating self on which their scientific procedures depend. Their

attempts will never make sense.

Systems of knowledge that simply observe and compare phenomena cannot

tell us more about reality than is already implicit in the boundary conditions of

the system itself. Physical science will never tell us more about “reality” than is

already implicit in the boundary conditions.

individuality, responsibility, selfless love and initiative. It explains that these are

all qualities of the conscious self, and it shows how to develop them. It presents

theoretical and practical guidelines for consistent living, economy, and ecology,

all based on the individual consciousness and the relationship with the universal

consciousness. This means that the Vedic wisdom is extremely relevant to our

modern situation.

In contrast, scientism is matter-based. It does not include consciousness as

something in and of itself. It denies real individuality, and it denies real

responsibility, because it maintains that there is fundamentally no one and

nothing to be responsible. It also denies selfless love and initiative. Material

scientism cannot, therefore, help us to develop these qualities. The scientistic

paradigm not only fails to help us to develop these qualities; it systematically

degrades them. I have already mentioned the propaganda on buses: “God almost

certainly does not exist, so just get on with your life and enjoy it.” That is the

goal, according to scientism – just enjoy. Material scientism does not give us any

higher values at all.

From the point of view of completeness, consistency, certainty, and relevance,

the Vedic wisdom tradition is far superior to material science.

Chapter 16

Universal inconceivable energy and the universal self

Local and universal inconceivable energy

I have already pointed out the existence of inconceivable energy. Now, I want

to point out that there are two kinds or levels of inconceivable energy.

On the one hand, individually and collectively we customarily and

consistently perform miracles. From the purely physical point of view, a

computer is a miracle, as is a space shuttle, or even a house of cards. This is on a

local scale. There are also miracles on the larger or universal scale. On the one

hand, it is a miracle that I can coordinate my thinking, perceiving, and acting, and I

may feel that I can take some credit for that. However, further than that, it is also

a miracle that I have the capacity for thinking, perceiving, and acting. For this I

cannot take credit. Not only I, but also so many other people – and also animals,

birds and fishes – also have their own types and grades of conscious faculties.

My ability to use the conscious faculties that are provided for me is an

individual, local miracle. Then there is the miracle that these conscious faculties are

provided. That is a universal miracle. How do we explain this universal miracle?

We cannot describe the conscious faculties in physical terms, and

consequently, we cannot explain their existence and function in physical terms.

We can only say that this is due to an inconceivable energy. There are two issues

here; the first is how we use them, and the second is the fact that we have them. Our

ability to use them depends on our individual inconceivable ability, and the fact

that we have them depends on an awesome universal inconceivable energy.

The fact that paraphysical conscious faculties exist and function universally

can only be attributed to a universal inconceivable energy. It is reasonable to

suppose that paraphysical phenomena must have paraphysical causes. It is

certain that one cannot in principle explain paraphysical phenomena in physical

terms, because one cannot even describe or define what is to be explained.

Mechanists may object to the idea that they cannot in principle explain

something in physical terms, but that objection is simply dogmatic. It is essential

to know the boundaries and limits of objective knowledge, so that we can

understand when another approach is necessary.

Three essential regularities

Science is supposed to explain essential regularities, and there are three really

essential regularities in science itself. These are (1) the existence and function of

the individual, conscious scientist; (2) the existence and function of the

community of scientists, of which the individual scientist is part; and (3) physical

matter, including the physical body. Science really has not made very good

advancement in explaining any of these from a physical point of view. That is not

surprising, because they are the very basis of science, and hence beyond its range

and purview.

According to the Vedic point of view, these entities are manifested by a

universal conscious self. This is perfectly reasonable and consistent. We have

direct experience that the functions and activities of the individual conscious self

are miracles from the purely physical point of view. It is therefore consistent to

accept that consistent universal miracles are manifested by a universal conscious

self.

Evidence for the universal conscious self

There is much consistent evidence for the existence of the universal conscious

self. The first point is that the criteria of objective science assume and entail the

existence and function of the universal self. I have already mentioned the criteria

of objectivity and inter-subjective verifiability. Inter-subjective verifiability

means that any number of subjects can observe the same phenomenon, make the

same measurements, and come to the same conclusions. The Wikipedia has this

to say about inter-subjective verifiability:

Each individual is a subject, and must subjectively experience the physical

world. Each subject has a different perspective and point of view on various

aspects of the world. However, by sharing their comparable experiences inter-

subjectively, individuals may gain an increasingly accurate understanding of

the world. While specific internal experiences are not inter-subjectively

verifiable, the existence of thematic patterns of internal experience can be

inter-subjectively verified.21

According to this point of view, the criterion of inter-subjective verifiability

means that first of all I exist as an individual. The fact that I and other

individuals exist cannot be explained in physical terms, yet I and many other

people exist, and our modes of conscious existence correspond with each other.

“The existence of thematic patterns of internal experience can be inter-

subjectively verified.”

Secondly, one cannot explain in physical terms the fact that my conscious

existence (which is physically indescribable and inexplicable) corresponds to the

conscious existence (which is also physically indescribable and inexplicable) of so

many others. The fact that we can talk about emotions and perceptions; about

philosophy; and about the meaning of life is not physically explicable.

Inter-subjective verifiability is not only a criterion in science; it is also a fact;

scientists do consistently act according to the criterion, and in order to explain

21 accessed 15th March 2010

this fact of inter-subjective verifiability, we have to accept an “inter-subject”. What

is the nature of the inter-subject? Just as I (the individual conscious subject)

coordinate my own conscious faculties, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a

universal conscious subject who coordinates all the individual conscious subjects.

That universal subject is the inter-subject.

This conclusion is not just reasonable; it is the most consistent explanation

possible. This is because consistent explanations depend on consistent

descriptions, and the fundamental basis of our descriptions is the conscious

coordinating self.

Chapter 17

God and the universal self – the Vedic perspective

Immanence and transcendence

Does the idea of a universal conscious self mean that I am trying to smuggle

the idea of God into science? No. According to the Western point of view, the

Divine has two aspects, namely immanence and transcendence. Immanence

refers to the way that the universal power acts within this world (“permanently

pervading and sustaining the universe”). Transcendence refers to God in His

own realm (“existing apart from, and not subject to the limitations of, the

material universe”).

To some extent we can understand by means of mind, senses, and logic how

the universal self acts within this world. This universal self is fundamentally

distinct from the Supreme Divine Personality who is described in the Vedic

tradition and elsewhere as living outside the universe, and who is fundamentally

beyond the range of our normal senses and mind. (Nonetheless, the Vedic

tradition describes the universal self as an expansion of the Supreme Divine

Personality.) This means that the universal conscious self is not a religious

concept; it is a logically and experientially verifiable entity. In postulating the

universal self (or rather, pointing out its logical inevitability), I am not smuggling

in religion in a pseudo-scientific guise.

I anticipate irate objections from mechanists and proponents of scientism, and

I want to point out that they have in fact smuggled in religion in the guise of

science. Scientism is an irrational faith, whose connection with our direct

experience is at best tenuous, and at worst completely spurious. Religion may be

less informed than material science about physical principles, but it is at least

rational.

The concept of the universal conscious self is in agreement with the Vedic

viewpoint that Paramatma (the supreme atma or living being) is the basis of

everything in the world. It is the basis of the physical world itself; it is the basis

of the individual existences; and it is also the basis of communities and

relationships.

The Supreme Personality in the Upanishads

Sometimes people think that the Vedic wisdom – and especially the

Upanishads – points to an impersonal reality, in which everything ultimately

rests on a featureless, spiritual oneness. They also conclude that texts such as

Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, which undeniably talk about the

individual self and the personal Supreme, are more recent additions to the Vedic

canon. This conclusion is not true, because the Upanishads (and especially the

main Upanishads already mentioned)22 point to a universal personality, or

purusha. The word purusha refers specifically to a personality with potency, and

cannot be interpreted to mean a featureless Oneness. The Upanishads state this

point over and over again:

I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality (purusha), Who is revealed

in the Upanishads.23

Saintly teachers (brahmanas) study the Vedas to understand the Supreme

Personality (purusha).24

Nothing is higher than the Supreme Person (purusha); the Supreme Person

(purusha) is the highest.25

22 Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihad-aranyaka and Shvetashvatara

23 Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 3.9.26

24 Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.4.22)

25 Kaöha Upaniñad (1.3.11)

The Universal Self as the basis of individual existence

The Vedic view is that a universal conscious self is the basis for our individual

consciousness. This is logical and reasonable. For example, it is the most

economical explanation for inspiration, such as the following. The famous

mathematician Carl Gauss was working on a particular problem, which was

solved suddenly by an unexpected and inexplicable inspiration. He later said,

“Like a sudden flash of lightning the riddle happened to be solved. I myself

cannot say what was the conducting thread which connected what I previously

knew with what made my success possible.” The inspiration just happened. The

solution to an extremely abstruse and abstract problem just appeared in his

consciousness.

Another mathematician named Henri Poincaré had been working on problem

for a long time, without finding a solution. The problem was suddenly solved

one day, as he got on a bus to go on some field work: “At the moment when I put

my foot on the step, the idea came to me, without anything in my former

thoughts seeming to have paved the way for it.” What, other than a conscious,

abstracting entity, can give this very abstruse and abstract inspiration on such an

extremely high level? One can only describe the situation in terms of abstracts, so

one explain the cause of the inspiration as an abstracting agent.

Dreams are another example of evidence for a universal self. When we dream,

we live in a kind of dreamscape, which has its own consistency. It is

unreasonable to say that we have personally created that dreamscape, because

nobody wants nightmares (which also have their own internal consistency).

Dreams are meaningful. There is symbolism in dreams, and the same symbols

occur in different people’s dreams. This is another example of something that

happens in consciousness, and which appears to have a universally conscious

basis. A dream is like a virtual reality which is created by consciousness.

Mystical experience – meaning direct experience of the spiritual presence of a

personality other than oneself – is another instance of evidence for the universal

self. Contrary to popular belief, people who have mystical experience are not

psychologically challenged. On the contrary, statistically they have higher

psychological well-being than any other natural or artificial group of the

population – higher than even the scientists who are performing the research.

This indicates that mystical experience – mystical union or connection –

corresponds to something that is natural and necessary for the self. It is

reasonable to think that this experience of some spiritual personality other than

oneself is an authentic reality that corresponds to the real nature of the self.

The same is true of spiritual insight. I can understand and experience by

introspection that I am not this body. When my body moves, it is I who move the

body, but I am not the body; I am the person who moves the body. The

realization “I am not this body” may be very vivid; how does one explain it? This

insight is logically valid, yet one cannot describe it in physical terms. Its cause,

then, can only be explained in non-physical terms.

By meditation, I can focus my consciousness on my conscious existence, and

reach a state of consciousness where I am literally not aware of my body and

physical surroundings. The question arises: “How is this level of consciousness

to be explained? From where does this understanding and realization come?”

One cannot describe the source of this consciousness physically, so one cannot

explain how it is produced any physical cause. The most economical explanation

is that it comes from a higher conscious source, which gives us this insight and

realization when we are ready for it.

Another example is our daily experience. Every day we meet completely new

situations. We have completely new experiences, we deal with all sorts of new

interpersonal physical situations, we engage in completely new conversations,

and we make new jokes at the snap of a finger. We know what we are doing; we

know how to talk; we know how to make jokes. We may recite a familiar nursery

rhyme to our children, or sing a song that we know well. How do we remember

the words and the moods as well? We are immersed in the experience of reciting,

but we do not know where that memory and intelligence comes from.

Anyone who has struggled to converse with people in a new language knows

what it is like to try to express thoughts, feelings and emotions using an

inadequate resource of words and grammar. It is a highly subjective process, in

which we search for linguistic strategies, and find solutions without knowing

how we do so. Something is helping and directing us; we do not know where our

insight comes from. It is given as if by a higher intelligence, which is helping us

through all of these situations.

The Vedic wisdom explains that our conscious processes are guided by the

universal self. In Bhagavad-gita, Krishna says, “From Me, the Supreme Self,

comes knowledge, understanding, memory, and forgetfulness.”26 Our memory,

forgetfulness, and knowledge – everything – is guided, and our relationship with

the universal self may affect how creative and competent we can be. So there is

good evidence that the universal self is actually the basis of our individual

consciousness.

26 Bhagavad-gita 15.15

Chapter 18

Universal inconceivable energy and the universal self

Universal self and community

The first of the three fundamental and essential regularities that underlie

science is the conscious existence of the individual scientist. The second is the

community of scientists, which, as an essential part of the objective scientific

process, is beyond the range and purview of the process that depends on it. One

cannot describe or explain in physical terms the conscious existence of the

individual subject. Consequently, one can also not describe or explain in physical

terms the correspondence between various individual conscious subjects.

Logically, then, we must accept the function of a universal inconceivable energy

that coordinates all of this. I have also already mentioned that the criterion of

inter-subjective verifiability necessarily entails a universally conscious “inter-

subject” that connects the various subjects.

The behavior of shoals of fish, and flocks of birds and bats gives good

evidence of this. The behaviour of large groups would be chaotic if they were

guided only by the efforts of the individual members, but this is not the case. For

example, schools of fish move as an integrated unit, rather than chaotically,

when attacked by dolphins or other predators. Recently, scientists have been able

to track gigantic shoals of hundreds of millions of fish such as herring in the

Atlantic. They have found that, once large shoals exceed a critical density, a chain

reaction takes place that synchronizes the movements of millions of fish. What

guides them? The most obvious and economical answer is that universal

consciousness is managing the whole shoal, just as it helps the individual.

Flocks of birds provide another example. A scientist named Edward Selous

spent many years observing birds. He described “[R]ooks rising up from a field

like a leaping up of black flame, so instantaneous and unanimous was it. It was

transfused thought, thought transference – collective thinking, practically – what

else could it be?” He also described flock of starlings: “How, without some

process of thought transference, so rapid as to amount practically to

simultaneous collective thinking, are these things to be explained?”

Ants also cooperate on huge tasks, with physically inexplicable coordination.

For example, when blind and deaf white ants build their nests, groups of ants

start building arches from opposite sides, and meet in the middle. How does all

this happen? It is coordinated by someone or something. An economical

explanation is that there is a universal consciousness that acts as a coordinating

agency. So it is reasonable to suppose that universal consciousness acts as the

basis, not only of the individual consciousness, but also of collective

consciousness or community.

Chapter 19

Universal self and matter

Consciousness in descriptions and explanations of matter

The third essential regularity that underlies science is the existence and

function of matter. Material scientists study matter, and they also depend on

matter for their instruments and the arrangements that they make in their

investigations. Furthermore, the scientist’s physical body, without which science

would not be possible, is also composed of matter. Scientists are eager to find the

ultimate basis of matter. The GUT (Grand Unified Theory), which would unify

all the forces known to science, is like their Holy Grail. There is excellent

evidence that the universal conscious self is the basis of matter and the laws of

matter. In fact, this conclusion is inevitable and unavoidable.

Our observations, theories and worldviews exist in our individual triune field

of being, knowing and satisfaction. This triune field cannot be reduced to

anything more fundamental, so the most consistent explanation is that the world

that we view – the universe – also exists in a universal triune field of being,

knowing and satisfaction. In other words, just as consciousness is the unified

field that accommodates our worldview, so universal consciousness is the

universal unified field that accommodates the world we view. The Grand

Unified Field is a universal, triune field of being, knowing and satisfaction.

Material scientists profess objectivity, but their objectivity is limited and

relative. One cannot really describe and measure matter objectively. Granted,

scientists make objective measurements of weight, length, temperature and so on

in whatever unit is convenient: for example, grams or ounces; centimeters or

inches; degrees Celsius or degrees Fahrenheit. The observation itself may be

impartial, but the decision to use centimetres and grams rather than inches and

ounces is subjective, and so is the definition of the particular standard units that

scientists decide to use. Furthermore, the process of measurement is also a

subjective process, because lumps of matter do not measure themselves.

Material scientists’ descriptions of matter are ultimately subjective. Weight is,

after all, a subjective experience, and even when scientists measure weight

accurately, they are only quantifying this subjective experience. Colour and form

are also subjective experiences, even when they are quantified. Ultimately, the

definition of empirical science means that our whole experience of matter is

subjective. Empirical science is the science of experience, and experience is a

subjective process, coordinated by the conscious subject.

Consciousness as the basis for matter

Descriptions of matter are ultimately subjective, and this has an all-important

consequence when we try to explain the existence and function of matter.

Consistent explanations must correspond to consistent descriptions. Before

scientists start trying to explain something, they have to say what they are

talking about. Consequently, if their descriptions of matter depend completely on

consciousness, the most logical and consistent explanation must be that matter

itself rests in consciousness. If scientists cannot talk about matter except in terms

of consciousness, the most consistent and economical explanation is that matter

exists in consciousness. In other words, again we find that are living in some

kind of virtual reality.

Some of the greatest scientists have accepted this conclusion. Albert Einstein,

for example, did not detach scientific research from feeling. He said, “I maintain

that cosmic, religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific

research.” He did not believe in a personal God, but he did believe in an

intelligence behind the universe. He said, “Enough for me the mystery of the

eternity of life; the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the

single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion – be it ever so tiny – of the

reason that manifests itself in nature.”27 (emphasis added) In other words, Einstein

maintained that a vast and humanly incomprehensible intelligence or reason

manifested itself in nature.

Sir James Jeans, a child prodigy who became an extraordinarily intelligent

astronomer, wrote, “The universe looks less and less like a great machine, and

more and more like a great thought.”28 He was convinced that that “thought”

(the universe itself) exists within a universal mind.” Alfred Russell Wallace, co-

discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution, later concluded that

we have to accept the existence of a mind that is itself the source of matter and

energy, and of our small minds.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, a famous philosopher and colleague of Bertrand

Russell, wrote, “The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside

space and time.”29 That is to say, the explanation of the nature of matter must

come from outside matter.

The non-physical basis of physical matter

Logically, the basis of all physical matter cannot itself be physical or material.

Physical matter is itself paraphysical. If its basis is not physical, then what is it?

We have direct experience of two realities: physical matter and consciousness.

27 Albert Einstein, The World As I See It

28 Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (New Revised ed.), New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932; Cambridge: The University Press,

1932), p. 186

29 Wittgenstein, L. (1961). Tractatus logico-philosophicus, D.F.

Our experience of consciousness is even more direct than our experience of

matter, because, after all, our experience of matter is a conscious experience of

matter. Now, the basis of the physical universe must be outside matter. Hence, it

makes perfect sense to say that the basis of universal matter is universal

consciousness, and that matter actually exists within consciousness. It will be

difficult or impossible to give an alternative explanation that connects with our

direct experience and still makes sense.

Cosmology is a subject that I will discuss separately. I will just mention here

that there is a great deal of astronomical evidence against the Big Bang Theory.

Theorists constantly have to invent new entities, such “dark matter” and “dark

energy”, to save their theory from going over its own event horizon. There is also

an alternative world view – Plasma Cosmology – that is better supported by

evidence.

Mathematics and the miraculous universe

I will just mention one point here. The mathematician Sir Roger Penrose has

calculated that the odds against the appearance of a universe capable of

supporting life are 1010123. This number is inconceivable. It is not just 10 with 123

zeros (10123). Even the number 10123 is already far beyond the scope of direct

experience, for the estimated number of particles in the universe is “only” 1080.

The number 1010123 refers to 10 with 10123 zeros. In other words, the mathematical

odds against the appearance and continued existence of the universe are so

inconceivably great that the universe cannot possibly exist. Yet it does exist.

Mechanistic scientists have tried to avoid this problem by proposing that

there are innumerable other universes with different properties, so the existence

of our universe with it favourable properties is not statistically impossible. This

is science fiction, rather than scientific hypothesis, because there is no empirical

evidence for the existence of these other universes. Besides, the number of other

universes required to significantly reduce the odds against the existence of a life-

supporting universe is still inconceivably great. Consequently, this delectable

fantasy is outside the range of direct experience and empirical science.

Consciousness and the laws of nature

In any case, mechanists have skilfully avoided a crucial question: “What

keeps the laws of nature the way they are?” The (largely unspoken) assumption

is that the appearance of matter at the beginning of the universe, and its

subsequent behaviour, are dictated by “the laws of nature”. This assumes that

the existence of the laws of nature preceded the existence of the matter that they

govern. This begs the question: “What is a law?” There is no such “thing” as a

law. Laws are our abstractions from our observations of the physical world

around us. To be more precise, laws are abstract relationships between principles

such as mass, energy, distance and time, which are themselves abstracted from

our conscious experience.

The first point here is that consciousness is required to perceive and derive

laws. That means that one cannot talk consistently about a basis for laws without

assuming that that basis is conscious. If a conscious, abstracting agent is required

to perceive laws, then a conscious, abstracting agent is required to maintain the

laws. It is illogical to suppose otherwise.

The second point is that it is not enough to suppose that the laws of matter

“came into existence” with matter, and have necessarily applied without

variation from that time on. The laws of matter enable physical objects to

continue to exist unchanged. If the laws changed, physical objects would cease to

exist as we know them, and if the laws ceased to operate altogether, then

physical objects would cease to exist altogether.

The question now is, “Natural laws maintain the existence of physical objects,

but what maintains the existence of the natural laws?” A law is an abstract

principle that logically must be maintained by an abstracting agent. The

important point, then, is not just that the laws “came into existence” at some

point in the past. The essential issue is that the laws continue to apply from moment

to moment, despite the inconceivable odds against this happening. There is no

perceivable or conceivable cause for this happening, and the “innumerable

parallel universes” fantasy does nothing at all to explain why the laws of matter

support the existence and function of the universe here and now, nano-second by

nano-second, against insuperably inconceivable odds.

From the physical point of view, the existence of the universe, and our

conscious existence in its centre, is frankly a miracle. What do we know that is

capable of performing miracles? Individual conscious entities perform miracles

on an individual level, so the rational conclusion is that the basis of the universal

miracle is universal consciousness.

Chapter 20

The universal self and the physical body

Now we come to a very contentious question: “What about the physical

body? It is obviously a very important aspect of matter, and of our life. What is

its basis? Does the body appear and function through purely physical

interactions, or is the basis of biological form and function universal

consciousness?” The physical body is an essential aspect of science, because

scientists do science through the body. Now, science and its essential aspects are

paraphysical entities, so one must logically conclude that the physical body is

paraphysical; objective science cannot describe or explain the form and function

of the body in objective, physical terms.

Materialists obviously contest this conclusion strongly. Especially since the

time of Charles Darwin, mechanistic scientists have insisted that living

organisms have developed by a purely physical process of evolution. Richard

Dawkins has stated, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who

claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or

wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

Stephen Jay Gould, the redoubtable protagonist of evolution, wrote with the

same fervour:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. …. Facts do not go away when

scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation

replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air,

pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether

they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be

discovered.30

Here, Gould reveals an extraordinary logical inconsistency. On the one hand,

apples fall; that is an observable and undeniable fact. On the other hand, the

evolution of human beings from apes is an “event” that no one has seen (because

we had not yet evolved to witness that glorious process.) Gould himself even

admits here that it is not yet known how this unseen “fact” took place, or even

what the “fact” is. Still, he states that evolution is a “fact” in the same way as the

falling of apples (an event that Newton proverbially perceived directly). This

suggests that there is a deep inconsistency in Gould’s faith in the theory of

evolution, and perhaps in the theory itself.

The discussion of evolution is a big issue, which I will discuss in more detail

30 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

separately. (Not everyone wants to go into the details of fossil evidence, for

example.) However, just from a description of the nature of the body, it is

reasonable to think that universal consciousness is actually the basis of the body,

and most unreasonable to think otherwise.

Bodies and machines

Mechanists maintain that bodies are like machines. (Ironically, machines are

themselves paraphysical.) Some of the essential characteristics of machines are as

follows:

(1) Machines are made of artificial materials that have to be created, because

they would not and could not occur naturally.

(2) Machines have very complex, artificial forms.

(3) Machines perform functions that would not take place spontaneously. No

one makes machines to facilitate falling off logs, because that is a simple and

natural process. They do make machines for flying up into the sky, because that

is not a simple and natural process.

Bodies have similar characteristics.

Composition

Many of the compounds in the human body are inherently unstable, high-

energy compounds that start to decompose immediately when we die. That is

why a burning log produces heat: the wood gives off energy as it breaks down

into more stable compounds, such as carbon dioxide and water. Nonetheless, the

body holds together very nicely as long as we are alive. That means that there are

laws of matter and laws of life. The Hungarian Nobel laureate Albert Szent-

Gyorgyi said, “Life is a revolt against the statistical laws of physics. Death means

that the revolt subsided, and the statistical laws resume their sway.”

Complexity

Like machines and other artificial objects, bodies are extremely complex.

Professor Richard Dawkins himself has written, “Biology is the study of

complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a

purpose.”31 Even though Dawkins would be one of the last people in the world

to think that bodies actually were designed for a purpose, he still admits that

they look as though they were designed for a purpose. Why? Because they are

extremely complex, and highly functional. He thinks that he has the solution to

this problem: natural selection produces a succession of progressively more and

more complex and functional organisms.

Dawkins’ faith that natural selection can produce limitless complexity is false

and irrational. Commonsense tells us that simple laws produce simple systems,

31 Dawkins, Richard, "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1

Conclusion

When we consider the composition, form and complexity of living bodies, it

becomes clear that they are not simply the products of physical interactions.

Rather, they are paraphysical entities, “physical phenomena for which no

adequate scientific explanation exists”. In this case, the conception of physical

evolution of living bodies through physical causes is completely unreasonable.

Physical interactions cannot change one paraphysical design-form into another

paraphysical design-form. For example, undirected physical interactions cannot

convert one type of clock, car or computer into another type of clock, car or

computer. Similarly, it is illogical to suppose that undirected physical

interactions can convert one type of paraphysical living body into another.

Self-replication

Mechanists maintain that living creatures are in effect self-replicating

machines. They are faced with the task of explaining how self-replicating

machines can appear and reproduce themselves. Let us ignore for the time being

the fact that machines do not occur naturally, and move on to another

insuperable obstacle.

Scientists have pointed out that a self-replicating machine must make a

symbolic representation of itself. This is one of the essential and unavoidable steps

in self-replication. However, symbols are non-physical abstractions from

physical reality, so one cannot describe in physical terms the process of making

symbolic representations. Hence, it is impossible to explain consistently how this

process could take place through unaided physical interactions.

There is a further obstacle. Suppose that could imagine a spontaneously

occurring system that produced symbolic representations by a purely physical

process. Still, Kurt Gödel proved with his Incompleteness Theorem that systems

of objective knowledge cannot refer to themselves. Hence, even if an undirected

physical system could make symbolic representations of other physical objects,

one can never describe how the system could make a symbolic representation of

itself. The idea of objective self-reference is a fallacy.

On the one hand, even materialists admit that living bodies look as though

they have been designed for a purpose. On the other hand, it is not possible in

principle to come up with a physical theory of how purely physical interactions

could produce living bodies. Then what is the basis of living organisms? The

appearance and growth of living creatures is, from the physical point of view, a

miracle. What performs miracles? Consciousness. So it is perfectly reasonable to

go back to the age-old understanding that physical bodies are created and

maintained by some universal consciousness.

Conclusion

According to the Vedic viewpoint, the universal conscious self is the source

and basis of individual consciousness; of conscious community and relationship;

and also of matter itself, including the special case of our bodies. This viewpoint

is completely consistent and logical. In contrast, the materialistic viewpoint that

everything has come from material interactions is neither consistent with facts,

nor is it logical. This is because there is always a subjective element in the

descriptions of the form and function of living bodies; one cannot describe them

in purely physical terms. Consequently, it will never be consistent or logical to

discount subjective process as the basis for living bodies.

Chapter 21

Vedic wisdom and higher values

We need knowledge that is complete, consistent, certain, and relevant. We

need to understand the nature of the crisis in which we find ourselves; we need

to know what would be an ideal situation; and we need to know how we can get

from our present situation to where we want to be. The consciousness-based

Vedic paradigm is specifically designed for this purpose. It tells us how to live

peacefully and happily, and what to do when we find that we have gone off

track.

In contrast, the matter-based, materialistic paradigm is not designed to help

us to understand what is going wrong in society. It does not tell us what is

happening in our consciousness, or how to get to a higher consciousness. It does

not tell us how we can agree on any basic principles and values, except the desire

to enjoy matter and to help others to do the same. Now I want to point out some

essential aspects of society, which can only be gained through a positive,

consciousness-based paradigm. They show conclusively that consciousness,

higher values, and spirituality are necessary and effective.

Leadership is an essential feature of society. The highest-rated historical

leaders – personalities such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King – have

been extremely clear about their personal values and about matters of principle,

and have lived and died for them. This is an essential aspect of society.

Research shows that people can make a real commitment to a group, a

company, or a cause when they are clear about their own personal values. This is

far more effective than if they have a set of values imposed on them. If they are

not clear about their personal values, they will waver in their commitment, no

matter how strongly values are imposed on them from outside. Values are

essential, even in material life.

Albert Einstein pointed out that society should exist for the individual, not

that the individual should exist for society. Vedic society is meant for that

purpose. The Vedic wisdom tradition is specifically designed to help us make

material and spiritual progress as a collective whole, and also individually. Vedic

society specifically addresses the issue of values, and helps people to be clear

about their own personal values.

Two prominent American researchers on leadership have written:

To act with integrity you must first know who you are. You must know what

you stand for, what you believe in, and what you care about. Clarity of values

will give you the confidence to make the tough decisions, to act with

determination, and to take charge of your life.32

This is a recipe for leadership, and how can we have society without

leadership? It is not possible. If leadership depends on knowing oneself, where is

the relevance of a materialistic paradigm that tells us that we fundamentally do

not exist as individuals? The way to leadership is through a paradigm that (a)

tells us that we do exist as conscious individuals in our own right, and (b) also

shows how we can develop our conscious qualities.

The same researchers on leadership say:

The instrument of leadership is the self, and mastery of the art of leadership

comes from mastery of the self. Self-development is about leading out of what

is already in your soul; it is about liberating the leader within you, it is about

setting yourself free.

A materialistic paradigm cannot facilitate this approach to life. This is because

such a paradigm gives no insight into the nature of the self, of individuality, of

becoming free, or of having initiative, dignity, or responsibility. These principles

are all meaningless within a materialistic paradigm, because it fundamentally

denies their reality.

One might say, “This tirade about values and self-development being the

basis of leadership is probably just rhetoric.” This is not true; it has been tried

and tested in the biggest laboratory in the world, namely business. If something

works in business, it is not merely an imaginary or hypothetical principle.

Business studies show that companies whose culture is based on shared

values outperform companies that exist only for profit. They generate revenue

four times faster; their rate of job creation is seven times as fast; the stock price

rises 12 times as fast; and their profit performance is 750% higher.33 This means

that values work. Even materially, companies based on shared values work

better than companies based on pure materialistic profit. Values are real; they are

not imaginary. They correspond to a real state of the self.

Louis Gunning, the head of Unilever in Southeast Asia and Australasia, once

said, “It is our souls that give us guidance and wisdom, and it is our souls that

animate human qualities of love, compassion, and honesty.”34 This talk of the

soul is coming from a businessman. The conclusion is that values matter in

business, but the next question is, “What kind of values?” There is good evidence

that spiritual values and spirituality are especially effective in business. Business

32 p.50

33 quoted, ibid., p.53

34 ibid. p.59

is more effective when it is performed on the basis of spiritual values.

Spirituality in business

A Gallup survey in USA showed that the proportion of the population that

“felt the need to experience spiritual growth in life” increased from 20% to 80%

in the five years from 1994 to 1999. That is a mega-trend in American society as a

whole. Another study was made of transformational leaders, who were not only

good at leading, but who had used their leadership abilities to turn situations

around. These transformational leaders were interviewed to find out what they

concluded was necessary to make business work. Almost three-quarters said that

their spiritual tradition was important to them. More than three-quarters of them

said that there is a strong and vital relationship between spirituality and

leadership practice. In other words, a spiritual person is a more effective leader

than a person who is not spiritual.

60% of these transformational leaders also said that it is essential for health

and productivity to introduce spirituality into the workplace. That is, companies

should not only employ spiritual people, but should introduce spiritual practice

– meditation, prayer, or whatever – in the workplace. However, they were not

promoting religion. They distinguished between spirituality and religion,

maintaining that the leader’s religious beliefs did not have so much impact on

leadership; spirituality did.

Tomasso, the largest provider of frozen meals in Canada, has “God-love” at

the center of their business plan, and as the pivot of all their transactions and

relationships. What “God-love” is, is deliberately kept non-specific.

Two researchers carried out a project to find out what could be the ultimate

competitive advantage with regard to management, leadership, and

organization. They published a report in 1999, concluding that “the ultimate

competitive advantage” in these essential areas could be spirituality.

Business is a great laboratory and testing ground for ideas and principles. If

something works in business, it is presumably a real principle, and spirituality

works in business. This indicates that society needs a consciousness-based

paradigm that really addresses the needs of the individual. We need to develop

initiative, leadership, responsibility, and higher human values, and to do that we

need a new worldview. Businesspeople themselves say that the self is the source

of the higher values that make business and life effective. We need a worldview

that tells us about this self, and which tells us how we can develop these higher

human values, individually and collectively. The success – indeed the salvation –

of human society depends on this.

Chapter 22

Vedic yoga and relationship

Types of happiness

I have discussed some big questions and issues:

“Who am I?”

“How can I be happy?”

“What is the basis of everything?”

The Vedic viewpoint is that we fundamentally exist. We are eternal, conscious

beings. We have limitless potential for self-realization, for material and spiritual

knowledge and ability, and for happiness and self-fulfillment. The Vedic wisdom

also tells us about the universal self, which is the reservoir of all our conscious

existence and qualities, and which is also the basis of matter. The Vedic wisdom

tells us that the purpose of life is to be happy. My first Vedic spiritual master

said, “I have come to make you happy; happy in this life, and happy in the next

life.”

Most people will agree that happiness is the real goal of life, but there are

different kinds and conceptions of happiness:

“Happiness is a warm puppy.”

“Happiness is an ice cream on a hot day.”

“Happiness is sharing a cigarette.”

There are many different kinds of happiness, and ideas about happiness.

Nonetheless, the highest kind of happiness, the happiness that people want most,

is in love or loving relationships. Surveys show that stable relationships are top

of the list of desirables. We find ourselves and our identity in relationships. It is

in relationships that we gain our necessities. It is in relationships that we find our

psychological identity. It is in relationships that we find our social identity. And

it is in relationships that we find love.

Temporary relationships

It is in relationships that we find most of what we really need. This includes

our relationship with our body; with our family; with our country or community;

and also with our ideology or beliefs (which may be a political party, a

philosophical group, or a religion).

Although we generally find ourselves and our necessities in these

relationships, the results are not completely satisfying, because these

relationships are temporary. First of all, the body changes constantly, and after

some time it will break down just like a car. One cannot drive the same car

forever, because cars break down. Similarly, I will not be able to drive this body

forever, because bodies break down as well.

Family relationships also change and break down. A young child may be the

apple of the parents’ eye, but when a new baby appears, the older child is

suddenly eclipsed, and there is sibling rivalry. “Hatched, matched and

dispatched”. At the other end of the line, people inevitably die. Even if I were

married to the most beautiful person in the world, at some point my partner will

die, or I will die. And before that, they may change their mind and decide that,

after all somebody else is more beautiful or desirable than I am; or I may change

my mind about them. Or they may move away. There are so many different

reasons why relationships break up.

Nations, and even religions, appear and disappear like bubbles in the ocean.

All these entities with which we relate are temporary, and our struggle to find

happiness in temporary relationships with these temporary entities cannot be

completely successful. However, in all of this there is a timeless principle.

Relationship and service

In order to find ourselves in relationships, and gain the benefit that we seek,

we have to serve or satisfy somebody. We have to satisfy the needs of the body.

We also have to satisfy the needs of our family, or we will not be accepted as a

family member. We have to satisfy the needs and demands of the country, which

means following the laws, paying dues and taxes, and perhaps fighting for the

country in time of war. We also have to serve the demands of our ideological

group, by going to the church, temple, or mosque, praying and follow different

rituals and practices. In all of these cases, we have to serve or please somebody,

but we can only find a limited level of satisfaction and fulfilment, and there is

always disappointment.

The Vedic wisdom tells us, “The reason that you are not satisfied is that you

are an eternal, conscious being, but you are trying to find happiness and

satisfaction in the world of matter. You are alive, but matter is inert. You are full

of knowledge, but matter is full of ignorance. You are full of potential for

happiness, but matter is the cause of destruction and misery. You should look

somewhere else for your satisfaction in relationship.”

The universal relationship

The universal conscious self is the basis of all the entities with which we relate

and on which we depend. In effect, we are indirectly relating with the universal

conscious self through them. Our real and fundamental relationship is our

relationship with the universal self, which provides us with all our necessities.

This is an eternal relationship, because the universal self is not going to die, or

reject us, or move away to a different country. According to the Vedic wisdom,

the whole purpose of life is to make this relationship with the Supreme, and the

means to accomplish this is through yoga. Yoga does not just mean hatha-yoga,

or physical exercise. There are four main divisions of yoga: the yoga of work, the

yoga of knowledge, the yoga of meditation, and the yoga of love.

Types of yoga

The yoga of work (karma-yoga) enables us to work and offer the results to the

Supreme. This is good as far as it goes, but it does not create a very close

relationship with the Supreme. Higher than the yoga of work is the yoga of

knowledge (gyana-yoga). Here, one learns what is spirit and matter, and

distinguishes between them by practical meditation and renunciation. This

brings more spiritual realization, but it provides only an impersonal insight into

spirit; it does not tell us about the supreme spiritual personality.

The yoga of meditation (dhyana-yoga) concentrates on the expansion of the

universal self within the heart, and mystic yogis may even be able to control the

laws of nature to some extent. However, that is still within this material world.

Beyond the yoga of meditation is the yoga of love (bhakti-yoga). Here, one

recognizes that the Supreme does not just exist in our world. Rather, our world

exists in the world of the Supreme. The ultimate loving relationship is not to try

to pull the Supreme into our world, but to become a loving part and parcel of the

world of the Supreme. According to the Vedic wisdom, yoga of love is the

highest form of yoga, because it gives the closest and most personal relationship

with the Supreme Personality.

Temporary and permanent relationship

The Vedic tradition recommends that we practice yoga, and also that we rise

through the yoga systems to make a closer relationship with the Supreme. In any

case, somehow or other we need to make our relationship with the supreme

consciousness or the Supreme Being. At the same time, we need to maintain a

positive relationship with matter and with our body, family, community, and

beliefs. These are gifts from Providence, and we need to deal with them

positively as long as we depend on them.

As we practice yoga, at some point we will realize that we are not this body.

We will realize that our existence fundamentally does not depend on our body,

our family, our community and nation, or on any ideology. We do not actually

belong in this material realm. (This insight comes especially when we have a

deep relationship of loving service with the Supreme Self.) At that point, we will

be able to go to the realm of pure consciousness. However, at the moment, to the

extent that we depend on our body, our family, our community, and our beliefs,

we have to maintain a positive relationship with them.

Secular spirituality

The Vedic wisdom tradition recommends making as close a connection or

relationship with the Supreme as possible. At the same time, it also allows

everybody to progress at their own rate. There is no sectarian bullying or

coercion to do things in a particular set way, or to follow a particular path. One

can choose one’s own way.

The Vedic view of reality is positive and effective, and provides an ideal basis

for education and for social ideals. It is applicable even in secular states, because

it is not a sectarian or dogmatic religion. In effect, it gives secular spirituality, for

it does not depend on a belief in any particular deity or religious ritual. It gives

universal material and spiritual principles on which we can all agree, because

they are self-evident and undeniable.

The Yoga of Living and Loving

The Vedic worldview is perfectly applicable in modern society. The Yoga of

Living and Loving program is designed to present the essence of the Vedic

wisdom. It demonstrates the existence of the individual conscious self, the

existence of the universal conscious self, and the relationship between them. It

then expands on these basic principles to show how we can how we can solve

our problems, and live peacefully, prosperously, and happily in the material

world. It also helps us to understand what science, religion and spirituality are,

so that we can progress both materially and spiritually to find complete

fulfillment.

Questions

Introduction

1. Why is traditional wisdom important in the modern world?

2. Why is it important to have a paradigm or world view that tells us about

consciousness, as well as about matter?

3. What are the results in society of having a paradigm that emphasizes matter

rather than consciousness?

4. How important to you is your conception and realization of your own

conscious reality and of the universal conscious self?

5. How important to you is your relationship with the universal conscious self?

To what extent is your life based on this relationship, and to what extent

would you like your life to be based on it?

6. To what extent do you have faith in material science as providing essential

insight into the nature and purpose of life?

7. How important is it to you to find meaning, purpose and happiness in life,

and to help others to do the same?

Chapter 1

The cost of science and technology

1. How do you personally view the relative importance of science and religion?

Do you think they are compatible, mutually exclusive, or complementary?

2. How would you distinguish between knowledge and wisdom? How are they

important?

3. In what way is it important to have scientific knowledge of consciousness?

4. What are some of the disadvantages and problems caused by technological

advancement?

5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of television?

6. To what extent do you see people (including yourself) becoming

unnecessarily dependent on, and even addicted to, technology?

7. What is your attitude towards profiteering at the expense of economically

weaker communities and societies?

8. What contribution would you like to make to correct the imbalance of values

in the world?

9. To what extent do you agree that knowledge must include knowledge of

consciousness, including knowledge and development of higher conscious

values?

Chapter 2

Mechanistic philosophy

1. Intuitively, to what extent do you accept that there is nothing except physical

matter, and that nothing is acting except physical laws? What do you sense or

know beyond the range of physical matter and laws?

2. How would you feel if it were true that we are just electrochemical machines?

3. What difference would it make in your life if there were no Universal Spirit?

4. What difference does it make to think that life has meaning and purpose, or

has no practical meaning and purpose?

5. To what extent are guidelines useful, and to what extent should we be free to

find our own way of living and moving in the world?

6. Does it make any difference to you to know that great scientists also have

strong faith in God?

7. What are the advantages and disadvantages or limitations of the purely

objective scientific method?

8. What is the difference between science and scientism?

9. Why can physical science not determine its own limitations?

10. What is the result of having a scientific establishment that categorically denies

any real, non-physical entities or influences?

11. To what extent do you think society as a whole is affected by scientism?

12. What effect does scientism have on people’s view of life and way of living?

13. In what ways might it be important to have a rational and effective

alternative to scientism?

Chapter 3

The Vedic wisdom tradition

1. To what extent do you accept the influence of ancient Indian (Vedic) culture

in world history?

2. In what ways might it be significant to know that more than 5,000 years ago,

there was a widespread culture, based on spiritual knowledge and

realization?

3. Is it possible to have non-sectarian spirituality, and what would it be like?

How does the prospect appeal to you, if at all?

4. Why is important to balance material and spiritual prosperity and wellbeing?

5. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of contemporary,

obsolescent knowledge, as compared with timeless knowledge?

6. What would be the role of a professor of timeless wisdom?

Chapter 4

The Vedic worldview

1. Who are you? What is the relationship between yourself, your body and your

mind?

2. To what extent does the concept of the non-physical, conscious self within the

body make sense, and to what extent is it useful?

3. What is your response to the idea that the universe exists within universal

consciousness?

4. What would you say is the meaning and purpose of life?

5. Do you see any evidence for the idea that our fundamental nature is personal

self-existence, knowledge and satisfaction?

6. To what extent are you already engaged in any of the four types of yoga,

either formally or informally, knowingly or instinctively? Which of them

appeals to you?

7. Does the idea of a society dedicated to pleasing the Supreme appeal to you?

To what extent would you want to take responsibility to make that more of a

reality?

Chapter 5

The false doctrine of scientism

1. To what extent is it obvious that unaided physical interactions cannot

produce artificial objects?

2. Give some interesting or appealing examples of artificial objects and

arrangements that could not be produced by physical interactions alone.

3. Why could unaided physical interactions not produce substances such as

pure copper, silicon, tungsten and aluminium?

4. What activities do you perform, or what results do you achieve that would

not be possible through physical interactions alone?

5. What are some significant examples of living beings creating order out of

disorder, and concentrating objects or substances?

6. Why could unaided physical processes not produce pictures or symbolic

representations of physical objects? What faculties are required to do so?

7. Give some examples of artificial objects that are much more complex than

objects produced by purely physical interactions.

8. Why can physical interactions not produce information? To what extent does

it make sense to say that information is non-physical, and if information is not

physical, what is it?

9. Why does one have to describe a system before trying to explain where it

comes from?

10. Professor Richard Dawkins has written, “Science boosts its claim to truth by

its spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on

command.” What does this statement tell us about science, and why?

11. Give your favourite examples of living beings opposing the physical laws of

nature.

12. What is the best way of becoming free from the limitations of the physical

laws of nature?

Chapter 6

Scientism is Illogical

1. Why do you think that no one has seriously challenged the obvious

contradictions in the idea that unaided physical interactions have produced

everything that we see in the world?

2. “Logic is the pattern of things that really happen. If something does not make

sense, it will not happen.” To what extent do you agree with this principle?

3. What are axioms, and why can a system of knowledge not explain or deny its

own axioms?

4. Why can we not use arithmetic to explain the nature of numbers, or deny

their existence? And why can we not use geometry to explain the nature of

form and motion, or deny their existence?

5. Give some graphic examples of devices that cannot perform operations on

themselves.

6. Why is the objective scientific process axiomatically outside its own range

and purview?

7. What is the point and importance of Erwin Schrödinger’s observation that the

objective method is based on removing the conscious self from the arena of

investigation, so objective scientists cannot use their method to investigate the

nature of the conscious self?

8. To what extent do you agree that the objective process is outside its own

range and purview? What important principles or entities would that

include?

Chapter 7

Criteria for Knowledge

1. What sort of knowledge do we need now, in order to begin to alleviate the

crisis in modern society?

2. Do you agree that we need knowledge that is (a) complete, (b) certain, (c)

consistent, and (d) relevant to present issues? Are there other qualities that

you would regard as being indispensable and essential?

3. Why is Vedic knowledge potentially more complete than materialistic

knowledge?

4. What is essential reality, and why can physical objects not be essential reality?

5. “It is clear and undeniable that we perceive, that we think, and that we act,

because these processes are the fundamental basis of science.” To what extent

do you agree with this point of view?

6. Why can we not deny or replace our faculty for perception, mental process

and purposeful activity?

7. How can we say that the conscious coordinating self is an essential part of our

experience?

Chapter 8

Consistent and relevant knowledge

1. To what extent do you think it might be true that material scientists have a

prior commitment to materialism? What difference would this make to their

conclusions, and how would this influence society?

2. Why do you think that materialistic scientists are so vehemently against

considering the possibility of supernatural causes?

3. Do you know of areas of knowledge where the worldview of the established

institution is not consistent with known facts?

4. To what extent do you believe what you perceive and to what extent do you

perceive what you believe?

5. In what sense are important current issues relate to consciousness, and how

might a paradigm based on consciousness help to identify and resolve them?

6. In what sense do money and economics depend on consciousness, and how

could good or bad consciousness affect the state of our economy?

7. Why can a worldview based on matter not resolve issues that arise out of

consciousness?

Chapter 9

Practical certainty

1. Why can the objective scientific process not look at itself, and how does that

affect our process for understanding reality?

2. Why is it not possible even in principle to explain sight in physical terms, as a

product of physical causes?

3. Why is it not possible to explain the mind from a detached, external point of

view, and how does this fact affect our ability to understand the mind?

4. In what way do the activities of material scientists contradict their belief that

only physical laws are active, and that there are no real, non-physical

influences?

5. What is meant by the terms “self-evident” and “self-validating”? What is the

connection between these two concepts?

6. What are the conscious faculties, and how can we say that they are both self-

evident and self-validating?

7. Why can we say that a self-evident and self-validating entity is an “essential

reality”?

Chapter 10

The Conscious Coordinating Self

1. Give some graphic examples of conscious coordination of the conscious

faculties: perception, mental process, and purposeful activity.

2. Why is it reasonable to think that a conscious agent coordinates the conscious

faculties, and how can we define the conscious, coordinating self in terms of

direct experience?

3. What is the logic conclusion from the fact that we honour people who act

meritoriously, and punish people who act against the common interest?

4. Why is it not possible to deny the existence of the conscious, coordinating

self, as defined here? In what way did David Hume fail in his attempt to do

so?

5. Give some examples from your own personal experience of being the

conscious agent who coordinates your own conscious activities, perceptions

and mental processes.

Chapter 11

Conscious Faculties and Inconceivable Energy

1. What is meant by the term “inconceivable energy”, and why is it reasonable

and indeed inevitable to say that the conscious faculties are manifested by an

inconceivable energy?

2. What is the essence of David Chalmers’ view of the nature of perception?

3. What is the essence of Marc Krellenstein’s argument that it is not possible in

principle to explain consciousness as a product of physical causes?

4. In what respect are modern scientists arriving at the Vedic conclusion with

regard to the fundamental nature of perception?

Chapter 12

Material science and the conscious faculties

1. Material scientists have not made progress in explaining the origin and

function of the mind from a material point of view. Why is this significant?

2. What is “gap theology”, and why should we avoid this strategy?

3. What is the “ghost in the machine” theory of the mind? In what way does it

contradict our everyday experience?

4. How do we know that the “ghost in the machine” theory of the mind is not

true? What evidence invalidates it?

5. What is the Identity Theory of the mind? To what extent is it useful in

explaining the origin of the mind?

6. What are the objections to the Identity Theory? To what extent is it really a

consistent theory?

7. What status do mechanistic theories give to free will? How is this significant

in society as a whole? How is it significant for mechanistic theories

themselves?

8. What is the status of truth in mechanistic theories? How is this significant for

the mechanistic theories themselves?

Chapter 13

Mechanists and purposeful activity

1. What is the difference between purposeful activity and spontaneous physical

actions and interactions?

2. What neurophysiological evidence supports the concept of deliberate,

purposeful activity?

3. What is the essence of Eccles’ “dualist interactionism” model of the self and

body?

4. How does prosthetic research support the principle of purposeful activity, as

distinct from mechanical response?

5. What would be the ultimate conclusion of Arthur Young’s observation that

action, rather than matter, is basic.

6. “If one cannot describe the conscious faculties in physical terms, it is not

possible to explain them in physical terms” To what extent do you agree with

this statement, and if it is true, how can we explain the function of the

conscious faculties?

Chapter 14

Science and the conscious coordinating self

1. What is the Vedic concept of the conscious self?

2. “The first aspect of the atma is the potential for non-temporal, personal self-

existence.” To what extent does this concept agree with your everyday

experience?

3. What are the other two aspects of the fundamental nature of the conscious

self, according to the Vedic conception? To what extent does this concept

agree with your everyday experience?

4. What is the point of the Swedish folk story about the travellers and the tub of

butter, and what could material scientists learn from it?

5. What is some of the everyday evidence that we really exist as permanent

individuals?

6. What is some of the scientific evidence for the existence of the conscious self

distinct from the physical body?

7. In what way does material science imply and entail the existence and

function of the conscious self? What consequence does this have for scientific

understanding?

8. What evidence can you put forward that suggests that the conscious self is

present, not only human beings, but also all living creatures? What

implications does this have in our everyday life and in society?

Chapter 15

Evaluating the Vedic and mechanistic worldviews

1. Why do we need to cooperate with each other, and why does this necessitate

complete, certain, consistent and relevant knowledge?

2. In what sense is Vedic knowledge more complete than material scientism?

3. In what sense does Vedic knowledge give a higher degree of practical

certainty than material scientism?

Chapter 15

Evaluating the Vedic and mechanistic worldviews

Questions

1. What is the distinction between consistency and self-consistency? In what

important ways is the Vedic worldview consistent and self-consistent?

2. In what ways is material scientism less consistent and self-consistent than the

Vedic wisdom?

3. Why does the present situation in modern society necessitate a worldview

based on consciousness, rather than on matter?

4. Compare the relevance of the Vedic and mechanistic worldviews to the

condition and urgent needs of modern society.

Chapter 16

Universal inconceivable energy and the universal self

1. Explain the two kinds of inconceivable energy involved in the existence and

function of the conscious faculties.

2. In what sense is the existence of universal inconceivable energy logically

inevitable? What implications does this have for the scientistic belief that

physical science can in principle cover everything?

3. What are the three essential regularities on which science depends, and why

are they beyond the range and purview of physical science?

4. Why is the concept of a universal conscious self reasonable?

5. In what way does the principle of “inter-subjective verifiability” logically

entail the existence and function of a universal conscious self?

Chapter 17

God and the universal self – the Vedic perspective

1. What is the distinction between immanence and transcendence, and why is

this important in finding knowledge on which all can agree universally?

2. Briefly, what can you say about the relationship between faith, religion,

reliable knowledge, material scientism and the Vedic viewpoint?

3. There is a popular belief that the Upanishads point to a featureless,

impersonal spiritual Oneness. How is that difference from the concept of the

universal self, and why is that significant in the quest for complete, certain,

consistent and relevant knowledge?

Chapter 17

God and the universal self – the Vedic perspective

1. What is the distinction between immanence and transcendence, and why is

this important in finding knowledge on which all can agree universally?

2. Briefly, what can you say about the relationship between faith, religion,

reliable knowledge, material scientism and the Vedic viewpoint?

3. There is a popular belief that the Upanishads point to a featureless,

impersonal spiritual Oneness. How is that difference from the concept of the

universal self, and why is that significant in the quest for complete, certain,

consistent and relevant knowledge?

Questions

1. What are the significant features of scientific inspiration, and why does this

provide good evidence for the existence and function of the universal self,

rather than for mechanistic theories of consciousness?

2. In what way do dreams provide evidence for the existence and function of

the universal self, rather than for mechanistic theories of consciousness?

3. In what way do mystical experience and spiritual insight provide evidence

for the existence and function of the universal self, rather than for mechanistic

theories of consciousness?

4. What features of our everyday experience suggest the existence and function

of the universal self, rather than mechanistic conscious processes? How does

this tie in with the Vedic viewpoint?

Chapter 18

Universal inconceivable energy and the universal self

1. In what way is the scientific community an essential part of the scientific

process, and why does that suggest that one cannot explain community

mechanistically?

2. How does the behaviour of birds, bats, fishes, bees and ants provide evidence

for the existence and function of a universal conscious self?

3. If creatures with a lower degree of consciousness can cooperate as integral

units, why do human beings find it difficult to do so? What could be a

remedy for this?

Chapter 19

Universal self and matter

1. In what way does science depend on matter, and why does this suggest that

one has to accept a conscious, rather than a mechanistic, basis for the

appearance, existence and function of matter?

2. “Just as our worldview exists in consciousness, so the world we view exists in

universal consciousness.” To what extent is this view logically inevitable?

3. To what extent are scientists’ observations and measurements of matter

actually objective, and to what extent are they really subjective? What

implication does this have for explanations of the existence and function of

matter?

4. Give some examples of scientists and philosophers who have supported the

idea of matter existing in universal consciousness.

5. Why is it logical to think that the origin and basis of the physical universe

must be conscious, rather than physical?

6. Mathematically, the existence of a universe capable of supporting life is

practically impossible. What significance does this have for our explanations

of the existence and function of the material universe?

7. Why is it logical to suppose that the basis of the maws of matter must be

conscious, and why is it illogical to suppose otherwise?

Chapter 20

The universal self and the physical body

1. To what extent is the absolute faith of mechanists in the concept of evolution

reasonable, and to what extent might it be simply faith?

2. Why is the similarity between machines and bodies significant in the

discussion of the basis of the body?

3. In what way is the composition of living bodies analogous to that of

machines, and why is this significant?

4. Why can purely physical interactions not produce entities that are more

complex than the physical laws? How is this significant in a discussion of the

concept of evolution?

5. Living bodies perform functions that naturally occurring physical systems

cannot perform, as well as functions that cannot be described physically. Why

is this significant?

6. Why is it illogical to think that paraphysical living bodies can develop by a

process of physical evolution?

7. What are some the problems in describing and explaining self-replication as a

purely physical process?

Chapter 21

Vedic wisdom and higher values

1. What is the purpose of Vedic society, and how is that purpose relevant in a

modern setting?

2. What is the connection between leadership and values, and how does this

help us to choose between worldviews based on consciousness and

worldviews based on matter?

3. What is the connection between leadership and knowing oneself? How do the

Vedic and mechanistic, scientistic worldviews compare in their ability to help

us to know the self?

4. How does business experience show that values actually work, even in the

field of material profit?

5. How is spirituality relevant in the field of business, and how is this

significant?

Chapter 22

Vedic yoga and relationship

1. What are the “big questions” that are important to you in your life at the

moment?

2. What are the main ideas about happiness that you encounter in your life?

3. How important is relationship in your life and the life of others?

4. What is your experience of happiness, satisfaction and disappointment in

relationships, and what are your conclusions from this experience?

5. What is your attitude towards helping and pleasing others as part of your

way of life? How fundamentally important do you think this is?

6. To what extent is relationship with the Supreme Divine Being important in

your life? How do the different types of yoga appeal to you? Are you

engaged in any of them, either formally or naturally?

7. Would you like to become more involved in the Yoga of Living and Loving

program, and if so, in what ways and to what extent?